
(lass f~8M 



Copighl N?. 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



"THE SYSTEM" 



AS UNCOVERED BY 



The San Francisco Graf t Prosecution 

BY 

FRANKLIN HICHBORN 

(Author of "The Story of the California Legislature of 1909"; 

"The Story of the California Legislature of 1911"; and "The 

Story of the California Legislature of 1913.") 



"It is well enough, my fellow-citizens, to meet as we do 
to-night, and to applaud the sentiments of patriotism, 
and to echo the voice of indignation uttered upon this 
rostrum. But another and more imperative duty de- 
volves upon every one of us individually, and that is 
to give his and her moral support to the officers of the 
law. We must not content ourselves by merely adopt- 
ing a set of resolutions, and then going home and 
forgetting about it, placing all responsibility upon the 
constituted authorities. This is not a case of the con- 
stituted authorities. It is the case of the people of San 
Francisco. And unless the people of San Francisco do 
their individual duty in supporting the prosecution, the 
officials of the courts and of the law must fail in their 
efforts/' — Walter Macarthur at the mass meeting called 
at the time of the attempted assassination of Heney. 



COPYRIGHT, 1915 

by 

FRANKLIN HICHBORN 



San Francisco 

Press of The James H. Barry Company 

1915 






FRANKLIN HICHBORN'S 

BOOKS ON 
CALIFORNIA POLITICS 

Story of the California Legislature of 1909 - - $1.25 

Story of the California Legislature of 1911 - - 1.50 

Story of the California Legislature of 1913 - - 1.50 

"The System," as Uncovered by the San Francisco 

Graft Prosecution 1.50 




FEB 3 1915 



'CI.A391564 



CONTENTS 



Chapter 

I. 
II. 

III. 
IV. 

V. 
VI. 

VII. 
VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

XL 

XII. 

XIII. 

XIV. 

XV. 

XVI. 

XVII. 

XVIII. 

XIX. 

XX. 

XXI. 

XXII. 

XXIII. 

XXIV. 



Page 

The Union Labor Party Movement... 11 

The Ruef Board of Supervisors 22 

The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 30 

San Francisco After the Fire of 1906. . 49 

Graft Prosecution Opens 73 

Ruef's Fight to Take the District Attor- 
ney's Office 87 

Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 96 

Ruef Loses Fight for District Attor- 
ney's Office 107 

Ruef and Schmitz Indicted. 110 

Fight to Evade Trial 121 

Ruef a Fugitive 130 

The Trapping of the Supervisors 139 

Confessions of the Bribe-taking Super- 
visors 154 

The Source of the Bribe Money 168 

Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 186 

Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 208 

Schmitz Ousted from Office 215 

The Real Fight Begins 240 

The Glass Trials and Conviction 269 

The Ford Trials and Acquittals 279 

The San Francisco Election of 1907. . .300 
Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef. 320 

The Defense Becomes Arrogant 335 

Jury Fixing Uncovered 357 



Chapter Page 

XXV. The Shooting of Heney 370 

XXVI. The Calhoun Trial 388 

XXVII. The San Francisco Election of 1909. . .405 

XXVIII. Dismissal of the Graft Cases 425 

XXIX. Ruefs Last Refuge Fails 440 

XXX. Conclusion 455 

APPENDIX. 

Judge Lawlor's Ruling in Motion to Dismiss 

Graft Cases i 

How the Supervisors Were Bribed vii 

Gallagher's Order Removing Langdon from 

Office of District Attorney xii 

The Ruef "Immunity Contract" xix 

"Immunity Contract" Given Supervisors xxi 

District Attorney Langdon's Plan for Reorgan- 
izing the Municipal Government xxii 

Roosevelt's Letter to Spreckels on the Graft 

Situation xxv 

Governor Johnson's Statement Regarding Ruefs 

Imprisonment xxviii 

Schmitz's Attempt to Control San Francisco's 

Relief Funds xxxiii 

Receipts and Disbursements of the Graft Prose- 
cution xxxiv 



PREFACE. 

A tethered bull does not know that he is tied until 
he attempts to go beyond the rope's limits. 

A community does not feel the grip of the "System" 
until it attempts resistance. Then it knows. 

San Francisco during the Ruef-Schmitz regime was 
no more under the heel of the "System" than when 
other "bosses" dominated; no more so than to-day; no 
more so than other communities have been and are. 

The political "boss" is merely the visible sign of the 
"System's" existence. However powerful he may ap- 
pear, he is, after all, but agent for the "System." The 
"boss" develops power, does the "System's" work until 
he is repudiated by the people, when another "boss," 
usually in the name of "reform," takes his place. 

But the second "boss" serves the same "System." 
Ruef entered San Francisco politics as a "reformer." 
He supplanted other "bosses." But Ruef in his turn 
served the "System" they had served. 

San Francisco, when Ruef had reached his point of 
greatest possible power, rose against him. The "Sys- 
tem" was not immediately concerned. Ruef had lived 
his day ; the hour for another "boss" to succeed him had 
come. But San Francisco proposed to get at those back 
of the "boss"; to get at the "System." And then San 
Francisco found the "System" more powerful than her- 
self; more powerful than the State of California. 

And San Francisco was beaten down, humiliated, 
made to understand that within her borders the laws 



could not be enforced against those to whom the "Sys- 
tem" granted immunity from punishment. 

To secure evidence against bribe-givers, the State 
granted immunity to bribe-takers who confessed their 
crimes and joined with the State to bring larger crim- 
inals to justice. And the "System's" agents cried out- 
rage that bribe-takers should go free of punishment. 

But the "System" granted immunity from punish- 
ment to those who had bribed. And the apologists for 
the "System" will tolerate no criticism of this sort of 
immunity. 

Other communities have risen against the "System's" 
agents, the "bosses," and the "bosses" have given place 
to other agents. But few communities, if any, have at- 
tacked the "System" as did San Francisco. Had they 
done so, unquestionably they would have found them- 
selves as ineffective against corruption as San Francisco 
has been shown to be. 

The "System" is confined to no particular State or 
locality; it permeates our entire public life. Judge 
Lindsey in Colorado calls it "The Beast." In California 
we call it "The Southern Pacific Machine," for in Cali- 
fornia the Southern Pacific Company was its chief bene- 
ficiary. Other communities call it the "Organization." 
The bull does not discover his rope until he strains at 
it; the community knows little or nothing of the over- 
powering "System" until it resists. San Francisco re- 
sisted and discovered. 

The mere bribing of a board of supervisors was not 
extraordinary. Our newspapers furnish us daily with 
sorry recital of bribe-taking public officials discovered 
in other communities. But the effective, searching re- 
sistance to bribe-giving which San Francisco offered 



was extraordinary. It was a new thing in American 
politics. It compelled the "System" to show its real 
strength, and that, too, was new in American politics, 
and extraordinary, also. 

The "System" at San Francisco had taken the usual 
precautions which ordinarily ensure it against successful 
opposition, or even question. It had, through its agents, 
selected the candidates for public office, including the 
District Attorney. With the District Attorney loyal to 
the "System" the "System" was secure against attack. 
And even were the District Attorney to resist the "Sys- 
tem," still was the "System" secure, for the "System" 
could deny the District Attorney, through the public 
officials it controlled, the funds necessary for successful 
opposition. 

But here again extraordinary circumstances worked 
for the "System's" confusion. Not only had the "Sys- 
tem" been mistaken in the caliber of the man whom 
it had permitted to be nominated for District Attorney, 
but patriotic citizens guaranteed the expenses of effect- 
ive attack through the District Attorney's office. 

Nevertheless, the "System" would ordinarily have 
been able to laugh at the attack, and render it abortive, 
by compelling the citizens who were backing the District 
Attorney to withdraw their support. 

Even at San Francisco, the supporters of the District 
Attorney felt the force of such attack. Those who 
supported the Prosecution found themselves harassed 
in their business ventures, and snubbed in the social 
circles in which they had moved. When Heney, 
stricken down in the discharge of his duty, lay at the 
point of death, a minister of the gospel prayed for the 
wounded Prosecutor's recovery. Immediately from the 



pews came silent expression of disapproval. That pastor 
refused to be intimidated, refused to join with his fash- 
ionable congregation against the Prosecution. He was 
eventually compelled to resign his pastorate. Rudolph 
Spreckels, while accounting for every dollar that the 
Graft Prosecution had expended, asked to be excused 
from naming those who had subscribed to the fund, lest 
they be attacked. Ordinarily, those citizens whose in- 
stincts had led them to guarantee the District Attorney 
their support, would have been forced to abandon him. 

But at San Francisco, a few citizens, in spite of 
ridicule, abuse, social ostracism and business opposition, 
stood firm for civic righteousness. This made San Fran- 
cisco's attack upon the "System" possible and stirred 
the "System" to extraordinary resistance. 

The "System," seeing itself threatened, went to the 
relief of the "boss," its agent, whom even its chief bene- 
ficiaries despised. The "boss," through his puppet in 
the Mayor's chair, declared the office of the District 
Attorney vacant, and appointed himself to fill the va- 
cancy. The boldness of the move startled the whole 
community. But the act merely demonstrated the ex- 
tremes to which the "System" was prepared to go. It 
was not extraordinary in comparison with what was to 
follow. Later on, witnesses were to be concealed, intimi- 
dated, gotten out of the State; their kidnaping even 
being attempted. The managing editor of a newspaper 
opposing the "System" was to be taken on the street in 
daylight, hurried across the country to a suburban town, 
forced into a stateroom of an outgoing train, and sent 
on his way to a distant city. The home of the pivotal 
witness against the "System"-protected defendants was 
to be dynamited, the witness and other inmates of the 



building miraculously escaping with their lives. A public 
prosecutor was, while conducting one of the "Systems- 
attacking trials, to be shot down in open court. A pris- 
oner at the bar was to arise to denounce the judge on 
the bench as a partisan and a scoundrel. Thugs were 
to invade court-rooms while trials were going on, to 
intimidate "System"-threatening prosecutors and wit- 
nesses ; men were to be trapped as they offered bribes 
to trial jurors ; agents of the Prosecution were to be 
bribed to turn over to the defending element the Prose- 
cution's papers and reports. An agent of the Prosecu- 
tion in the employ of the Defense, working in the inter- 
est of the Defense, was to sit at the Prosecutor's side 
during the selection of a trial jury, to advise the Prose- 
cutor of the character of the men under examination 
for jurors, and with such advice mislead and confuse. 

No; bribe-giving at San Francisco was not so extra- 
ordinary as the events which grew out of attempt to 
punish for bribe-giving. 

And now, as we look upon San Francisco beaten, 
and retarded in her development because of that beat- 
ing, the hopelessness of her opposition to the "System" 
is the most startling thing of all. We see now, that 
with a District Attorney intent upon doing his duty, with 
funds ample for vigorous prosecution guaranteed, with 
trial judges of integrity and ability on the bench, none 
of the accused, so long as he remained loyal to the 
"System" — so long as he did not "snitch" — was in real 
danger of suffering the law-provided punishment for 
the crimes uncovered against him. 

Ruef carefully weighed the ability of the Prosecution 
to save him, against the power of the "System" to pun- 
ish or to save, and knowing the power of the "Sys- 



tern" as few other men knew it, Ruef betrayed the 
Prosecution and cast his lot with the "System." The 
outcome would have justified his judgment but for a 
series of unusual events which none could have foreseen. 
The most extraordinary incident of the whole Graft 
Prosecution, we can now, with the "System" uncovered 
before us, see, was that Abe Ruef went to the peniten- 
tiary. With full knowledge of the power, resources and 
methods of the "System," it is not at all extraordinary 
that guilty men under its protection should escape pun- 
ishment. But it is extraordinary — due only to a chain 
of extraordinary happenings — that one of its agents, 
who continued faithful, who didn't "snitch," finds him- 
self in prison and unable to get out. 

The San Francisco Graft Prosecution uncovered the 
"System" as it has been uncovered in no other American 
city, for San Francisco made the hardest, most per- 
sistent, and longest continued attack that a municipality 
has ever made upon it. California has profited greatly 
because of the uncovering, for while uncovered, the 
"System" may be proceeded against intelligently, not in 
the courts, but at the ballot-box. California has been 
quick to profit by the opportunity which the uncovering 
of the "System" has offered. 

In preparing this volume for the press it is my pur- 
pose — so far as lies in my power to do so — to keep the 
cover off. 

FRANKLIN HICHBORN. 

Santa Clara, Calif., Dec. 25, 1912. 



CHAPTER I. 
The Union Labor Party Movement. 

Eugene E. Schmitz 1 was elected Mayor of San Fran- 
cisco in November, 1901. He had been nominated by 
the Union-Labor party. This party was organized after 
labor disturbances which had divided San Francisco into 
militant factions, with organized labor on the one side 
and organized capital on the other. 2 

The convention which had nominated Schmitz was 
made up in the main of delegates who had affiliations 
with labor unions and were in close sympathy with the 
labor-union movement. 

But this did not mean that the new party had the 
unanimous approval of the labor unions, or of the rank 
and file of organized labor. A considerable faction, with 
P. H. McCarthy, president of the State Building Trades 
Council, even then a dominating figure in San Francisco 
labor circles, at its head, advised against the movement, 
and opposed the new party candidates not only in 1901, 



i Schmitz, previous to his election, was employed as a musi- 
cian in a San Francisco theater. His connection with organized 
labor came through membership in the Musicians' Union. He had 
no intention of aspiring to the Mayor's chair until Ruef suggested 
it to him. 

2 The San Francisco labor strike of 1901 arose out of the refusal 
of the organized teamsters to deliver goods to a non-union express 
agency. The Employers' Association refused to treat with the 
men collectively. Other organizations went out in sympathy. 

James D. Phelan, who was then Mayor, was the intermediary 
between the teamsters and their employees. He advocated recog- 
nition. The negotiations failed. During the progress of the strike 



12 The Union Labor Party Movement 

but in 1903 when Schmitz was a candidate for re-elec- 
tion. 

On the other hand, the new party had in the begin- 
ning the support of the Coast Seamen's Journal, pub- 
lished at San Francisco, and one of the most influential 
labor publications on the Pacific Coast. It had, too, the 
advocacy of several earnest Labor leaders. 

Very frankly, such leaders questioned the ultimate 
consequences of the movement, expressing fears which 
time was to justify. But to them the situation offered 
no alternative. Their support and influence went to the 
new party as an expedient of the times, not as the be- 
ginning of a permanent political organization. 

But the movement, once started, got beyond their 
control. During the first five years of Union-Labor 
party activities in San Francisco many of these original 
supporters were forced, first into silence and finally into 

there were constant disturbances. A steamship company, for ex- 
ample, employed prizefighters in the guise of workingmen to seek 
positions as strikebreakers, and when interfered with to belabor 
the pickets. Assaults were made upon non-union teamsters car- 
rying supplies to and from railway stations. The Chief of Police, 
in order to preserve peaceful traffic, placed two policemen upon 
each truck. Labor leaders asked not only that the police be with- 
drawn from the trucks, but from the waterfront. This action the 
Mayor refused to take, on the ground that it was his duty to pre- 
serve public order, and that it was in the interest of all to avert 
rather than suppress trouble. A meeting of representatives of the 
several factions was held at the Mayor's office, September 23, 1901. 
The story was circulated that the Mayor had said at the meeting 
that if the workmen did not want to be clubbed let them go to 
work. Both sides now admit the statement was not made. Joseph 
S. Tobin, Henry U. Brandenstein, Lawrence J. Dwyer and Peter 
J. Curtis, who were present, have set forth in affidavit that "Mayor 
Phelan did not say at said conference, as has been alleged, refer- 
ring to the workingmen's strike, that 'if they don't want to be 
clubbed let them go to work,' nor did he make any statement of 
like import." At the time, however, feeling was running so high 
at San Francisco that the most extravagant stories were believed. 
Opponents of the administration — those representing capital as well 
as those advocating recognition of the unions — seized upon every 
opportunity to discredit. Crafty adventurers of the type of Abe 
Ruef lost no chance to work distrust and confusion. Out of the 
turmoil came the Union Labor party. 



The Union Labor Party Movement 13 

open repudiation of the methods of the Union-Labor 
party administration. 

In the meantime, members of the McCarthy faction, 
which had resisted the organization of the party, and 
had opposed it at the 1901 and 1903 elections, became 
its strong partisans. This element supported the party 
ticket at the 1905 election; and in 1907, and again in 
1909, when McCarthy was himself the Union-Labor 
party candidate for Mayor. 

But the Union-Labor party ticket which McCarthy 
headed did not have the united support of labor leaders 
who had organized the movement. Indeed, labor leaders 
whom the McCarthy faction in 1901 called "scabs" for 
organizing the Union-Labor party, were, by the same 
men who had condemned them in 1901, denounced as 
"scabs" during the 1909 campaign for not supporting 
the Union-Labor party candidates. 

From the beginning, the Union-Labor party had the 
support of elements outside the labor-union movement. 
Much of this support came from citizens who, regard- 
less of their attitude on trade-unionism, were dissatisfied 
with the old parties. The situation offered exceptional 
opportunity for the political manipulator. But the one 
man with the political vision to see the possibilities of 
the third-party movement, was not a member of a labor 
union. He was a lawyer who had already attained some 
prominence in San Francisco politics — Abraham Ruef. 3 



3 Ruef graduated from the University of California and from 
the University of California law school with exceptional honors. 
He was at twenty-one a practicing attorney. With Franklin K. 



14 The Union Labor Party Movement 

Ruef was quick to see the potentialities of the politi- 
cal Frankenstein which groping labor leaders had 
brought into being. He knew that they could not con- 
trol their creation; he knew that he could. He did not 
overestimate his powers. He managed the new party's 
1901 campaign. 4 Under his direction, success was won 
for a cause that had been deemed hopeless. The genius 
of Abraham Ruef made Eugene E. Schmitz Mayor of 
San Francisco. 5 



Lane, the present Secretary of the Interior, Dean John H. Wig- 
more of the Northwestern University, and others, he organized a 
club for civic reform. His first political convention, he tells us in 
his Confessions, showed him that representative government was 
a farce. He resolved to devote himself to his law practice. But 
almost immediately we find him an "errand boy" for Martin Kelly 
and Phil Crimmins, powerful "bosses" in their day, but now prac- 
tically forgotten. Ruef continued with Kelly and Crimmins for 
ten years. He drifted with the machine, securing excellent train- 
ing for his future career. His opportunity came in 1901, when, in 
its effort to throw off the yoke of the bosses, the State secured 
the enactment of a new primary law. Under this law Ruef took 
his first step to secure control of the State political machine. He 
seized upon the new law as a vehicle to organize a "reform" 
movement. His organization took the name Republican Primary 
League. He secured a large following. He was becoming power- 
ful. He tells us in his Confessions that during this period he 
was invited to dine at the homes of men of political and social 
importance, among them William F. Herrin, chief counsel of the 
Southern Pacific Company, and Patrick Calhoun, president of the 
United Railroads. But as yet, Ruef had little real influence in the 
"organization." Then came the labor unrest, and the Union Labor 
party movement. Ruef managed to combine the Republican Pri- 
mary League with the Union Labor party movement. This com- 
bination was the basis of his campaign for the election of Schmitz. 

4 Ruef also provided much of the funds employed in the first 
Schmitz campaign. In a statement published May 16, 1907, Ruef 
said: "When Schmitz first ran for Mayor I made his campaign 
for him, and put up $16,000. My friends told me I was a fool. 
I guess I was." 

5 Out of the 52,168 votes cast for Mayor, at the 1901 election, 
Schmitz received 21,776. His opponents — Wells (Republican) and 
Tobin (Democrat)— divided 30,392 between them, Wells receiving 
17,718 and Tobin 12,674. Up to the present time (1914) the Union- 
Labor party has four times been successful in San Francisco 
mayoralty elections. But only once, in 1905, has its candidate been 
elected by majority vote. Changes in the San Francisco Charter, 
ratified at the 1911 session of the State Legislature, place the elec- 
tion of municipal officials on a non-partisan basis, and prevent elec- 
tion by plurality vote. Henceforth all officials must be elected by 
majority vote. 



The Union Labor Party Movement 15 

In practical acknowledgment of Ruef's services, 
Schmitz issued an open letter, in which he stated him- 
self privileged to consider Ruef his friendly counsellor. 6 
The issuance of that letter made Ruef the recognized 
political representative of the Union-Labor party ad- 
ministration, a position which he held until the estrange- 
ment of himself and Schmitz under the strain of the 
graft prosecution. 7 



6 Schmitz' s letter announcing his obligation to Ruef was as fol- 
lows: 

"My Dear Ruef: Now that the election is over and I am to be 
the Mayor of our native city, I wish to express to you and through 
you to all your loyal friends and the faithful Republicans who sup- 
ported my cause, my profound appreciation of the generous, whole- 
souled, substantial and effective support accorded me in the exciting 
campaign which has just closed. Viewed from your prominent 
position in the Republican party, I know the seriousness of the step 
which you took when you voluntarily and unconditionally offered 
me your valuable aid, and I cannot in words properly give utter- 
ance to my deep feeling in this regard. I can only say that your 
action is worthy of yourself, and that no higher praise can be ac- 
corded you. 

"I have now for some fifteen years enjoyed your acquaintance 
and friendship and your services as my attorney in many capaci- 
ties, and I say without hesitation or flattery that I have yet to find 
a more honorable, a more loyal, a more able attorney, or a truer 
friend. 

"I feel that I owe a great deal of my success in this campaign 
to you and your friends, and I shall not permit myself at any time 
to forget it. 

"Though you have never asked or even suggested it, I shall, with 
the utmost confidence and with a sentiment of absolute security, 
feel myself privileged at all times to consider you as my friendly 
counsellor and to call upon you whenever I may require assistance 
in the solution of any of the perplexing and complicated questions 
which must necessarily arise in the conduct of so vast and im- 
portant an office. 

"I trust that you will not hesitate to say that I may do so. 
Again and again thanking you and your friends, I am, 
"Very sincerely yours, 

"E. E. SCHMITZ." 

7 Ruef at once availed himself of the opportunities which his 
position offered. He accepted regular "retainers" from public-serv- 
ice corporations. He testified before the Grand Jury that he was 
employed by the United Railroads through Tirey L. Ford, just after 
the first election of Schmitz, at $500 per month, and that he gave 
receipts to Ford for this money, during Schmitz's first term of 
office, but received the money always in Ford's office in currency; 
but that after the second election of Schmitz, he (Ruef) refused 
to give any more receipts for this money, although he continued 
to receive it from Ford the same as before with receipts, and that 



1 6 The Union Labor Party Movement 

But the government of San Francisco did not pass 
entirely under control of the Union-Labor party until 
four years after Schmitz's elevation to the Mayoralty. 

During the era of Union-Labor party power in San 
Francisco, the Mayor and the eighteen members of the 
Board of Supervisors were elected every two years. 8 
Schmitz, under Ruef's management, was re-elected in 
1903. But the Union-Labor party failed at that elec- 

after the third election his salary was increased to $1,000 per month, 
which was paid in the same way by Ford without any receipts. 

Ruef further testified that he was employed by the Pacific States 
Telephone and Telegraph Company, immediately after Schmitz's 
first election, through T. V. Halsey, and that Halsey paid him 
$1,200 per month in currency without any receipt. 

E. S. Pillsbury, general counsel of the Pacific States Telephone 
and Telegraph Company, testified that he never heard of Ruef's 
employment until after the indictments were returned against Hal- 
sey, and that he, Pillsbury, attended to all of the legal business of 
the company during the entire time Ruef was under employment. 
Pillsbury received only $1,000 per month for his own services, and 
testified that he would have objected to the payment to Ruef of a 
larger salary than he was getting. 

Pillsbury was a stockholder to the amount of $500,000 in his 
own right, and was a member of the executive committee of the 
board of directors of the company. 

At the trial of The People vs. Tirey L. Ford, No. 817, I. W. Hell- 
man, one of the most prominent of California bankers and at one 
time a director of the United Railroads, testified: "Some five years 
ago (the Ford trial was in 1907, which would make the date about 
1902) Mr. Holland, who was then the president of the United Rail- 
ways, came to me to ask my advice whether Mr. Ruef should be 
employed as an attorney for the United Railways, stating that by 
employing him peace could"- be secured with the labor unions, that 
he had great influence with them, and there would be general 
peace, and it was to the benefit of the railways company to have 
such peace. Mr. Ruef then was an attorney of high repute, recog- 
nized as a good lawyer, and I said if that could be accomplished 
it would be for the benefit of the railway company as well as for 
the public, and I advised yes. Whether he has been employed or 
not I do not know, because I afterward sold my interest in the 
company and I never have inquired whether he had been employed 
or not." 

In this connection, it is interesting to note that Ruef in his 
latest confession, the publication of which was begun in the San 
Francisco Bulletin in May, 1912, states that his employment by 
corporations as attorney did not begin until after the second 
Schmitz election — that is to say, in 1903. Hellman's testimony 
would indicate that his employment by the United Railroads dates 
from 1902. Compare with footnote 77, page 74. 

8 Under amendments to the San Francisco Charter, ratified by 
the Legislature of 1911, the Mayor and Supervisors are now 
elected to four-year terms. 



The Union Labor Party Movement 17 

tion, as it had in 1901, to elect a majority of the Board 
of Supervisors. Many of the commissions, on the other 
hand, through appointments by the mayor, had, by 1903, 
passed completely under Union-Labor party control. 

Gradually, the opinion grew in San Francisco that 
the management of the departments was unsatisfactory, 
if not corrupt. This opinion, in 1905, when Schmitz 
was for a third time the Union-Labor party candidate 
for Mayor, found expression in fusion of the Republican 
and Democratic parties to bring about the defeat of the 
Union-Labor party nominees. 

This fusion was in the name of municipal reform. 
The organizers of the movement were in the main op- 
posed to machine political methods. When, however, 
the movement gave evidence of vitality and strength, 
the political agents of public service corporations be- 
came identified with its leadership. 9 The new leaders 
were soon in practical control. Public-service corpora- 
tions were largely instrumental in financing the move- 
ment. Testimony was brought out before the Grand 
Jury which conducted the graft investigations, that 
nearly every public-service corporation in San Francisco 



9 George F. Hatton, Southern Pacific lobbyist and politician, 
and political manager for United States Senator George C. Perkins, 
was one of the principal leaders of the 1905 "reform" movement. 
He was at one time retained as an attorney by the Empire Con- 
struction Company, affiliated with the Home Telephone Company, 
which was seeking a franchise to establish a telephone system in 
San Francisco in competition with the Pacific States Telephone 
and Telegraph Company. The Home Telephone Company contrib- 
uted to the "reform" campaign fund. Through the "reform" Board 
of Supervisors, who were to be elected, and whose campaign was 
thus financed, the Home Company was to get its franchise. But 
the "reform" candidates were defeated, the Schmitz-Ruef Union- 
Labor party candidates were elected. The Home Telephone Com- 
pany thereupon proceeded to secure its franchise by employing 
Ruef. 



1 8 The Union Labor Party Movement 

contributed to the fusion fund, the average of the con- 
tributions being $2,500 for each corporation. 10 

On the other hand, the public-service corporations 
contributed liberally toward the election of the Ruef- 
backed, Union-Labor party candidates. 11 Ruef was 
already on the pay-roll of the law departments of many 
of them. Thus, generally speaking, it made little dif- 
ference to the corporations whether the "reform" fusion 
candidates or the Ruef Union-Labor party candidates 
were elected. The corporations had captained each 
side, and in a large measure had financed each side. 

The inevitable difficulties of a campaign, financed 
and officered by public-service corporations, to correct 
municipal ills for which the corporations were in 
large measure responsible, were encountered from the 
beginning. For the head of the reform or fusion ticket, 
men who had been prominent in the organization of the 
anti-Ruef crusade were suggested, only to be rejected 
by the corporation allies who had after the reform 

10 William Thomas, of the law firm of Thomas, Gerstle & Frick, 
attorneys for the Home Telephone Company, testified before the 
Grand Jury that his company had contributed $8,000 to the "re- 
form" campaign fund. The testimony indicated that this money 
was used at the primaries. Louis Sloss, one of the leaders of the 
"reform" movement, testified that after the primaries, Detweiler, 
who was at the head of the Home Telephone Company enterprise, 
sent his personal check for $800 additional. Fairfax H. Wheelan, 
one of the leaders of the "reform" movement, testified before the 
Grand Jury that the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Com- 
pany, in the name of T. V. Halsey, subscribed $2,000 to the fund; 
and the United Railroads, concealing its identity under the name 
"Cash," $2,000 more. 

ii Dr. Charles Boxton was one of the Union-Labor party Super- 
visors elected in 1905. At the second trial of Louis Glass, vice- 
president of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, 
for bribery, Boxton testified that during the campaign, T. V. Hal- 
sey, political agent for the company, met him on the street and 
gave him a sealed envelope, saying: "If that will be of any use 
to you use it." 

Boxton found the envelope to contain $1,000 in United States 
currency. 



The Union Labor Party Movement 19 

group's preliminary successes become identified with the 
movement. 

Finally, after several names had been canvassed, John 
S. Partridge, an attorney of good ability and repute, 
but scarcely known outside the immediate circle in 
which he moved, was agreed upon as Mr. Schmitz's 
opponent. Both the Democrat and the Republican party 
nominated Mr. Partridge, and with him a complete 
fusion ticket, including supervisors. 

Partridge had a clear field against Schmitz, but his 
candidacy failed to carry the confidence, or to awake 
the enthusiasm which brings success at the polls. 

The Union-Labor administration was openly de- 
nounced as corrupt. Francis J. Heney, 12 fresh, from 
his success in prosecuting the Oregon land fraud cases, 
went so far as to declare in a speech before one of the 
largest political gatherings ever assembled in San Fran- 
cisco that he knew Ruef to be corrupt, 13 and, given 
opportunity, could prove it. 

12 Francis J. Heney when five years old went to San Francisco 
with his parents. He was educated at the public schools of that 
city, the University of California, and Hastings Law School. After 
being admitted to practice he lived for a time in Arizona, where 
he served as Attorney-General. On his return to San Francisco 
in 1895, he confined himself to civil practice until, at the solicita- 
tion of United States Attorney-General Knox, he undertook the 
prosecution of the Oregon Land Fraud cases. He was at the close 
of successful prosecution of these cases, when invited by Rudolph 
Spreckels, Phelan and others, to participate in the prosecution of 
the San Francisco graft cases. 

13 Heney's statement was prophetic. The published account of 
his speech (see Chronicle, November 6, 1905) was as follows: 

"If I had control of the District Attorney's office, I would indict 
Abe Ruef for felony and send him to the penitentiary, where he 
belongs, for I have personal knowledge that he is corrupt. 

"If you elect these people, the graft of this city will become so 
great that the citizens of San Francisco will ask me to come back 
and prosecute him. When the time comes I will do as the people 
request as a matter of civic duty." 

Heney's charge brought caustic reply from Ruef. In an open 
letter to Heney, published November 7, 1905, Ruef said: 

"Francis J. Heney: — In the published reports of your speech at 



20 The Union Labor Party Movement 

The public generally believed Heney's charges to be 
justified. But of approximately 98,000 registered voters 
only 68,878 voted for Mayor, and of these, 40,191 voted 
for Schmitz. Partridge received only 28,687 14 votes, 
being defeated by a majority of 11,504. 

Mechanics Pavilion last Saturday night you are represented as 
saying: 'I say to you, moreover, that I personally know that Abra- 
ham Ruef is corrupt, and I say to you that whenever he wants 
me to prove it in court I will do so.' 

"I am not a candidate for office, but as a man I do not propose 
to leave your false statement undenied. 

"In the past I have paid little attention to anything said by 
hostile papers concerning myself, feeling that the public fully un- 
derstood the despicable motives underlying the utterances of their 
proprietors. In your case a different situation presents itself. You 
have recently acquired considerable repute as a prosecuting attor- 
ney for the United States Government. Your statements, if un- 
challenged, may be given some credence by those not familiar with 
the true condition of affairs. 

"In making the statement that you personally know that I am 
corrupt you lied. You cannot personally know that which does 
not exist. 

"In making the statement at a time and place which allowed 
no opportunity for a legal showing before the date of the election 
which you seek to influence, you showed the same courage which 
put a bullet into the body of Dr. J. C. Handy of Tucson, Ariz., in 
1891, for whose killing you were indicted for murder, and upon 
trial were acquitted because you were the only witness to the deed. 

"You say whenever I want you to prove it in court you will 
do so. 

"I want you to try to prove it, and at once. I demand that 
you begin at once. I know you cannot prove what does not exist. 
Why you should wait upon my desire, why you should depend 
upon my wish to proceed with the performance of what must be 
to every good citizen a public duty, I do not know. 

"But as you declare that you will proceed only with my con- 
sent, I give you here and now full consent and authority to pro- 
ceed, and I go further and ask that you do so. 

"I regret that your recent identification with the Citizens' Alli- 
ance and with the corporations anxious to encompass the defeat 
of a candidate in a political campaign should have made you so 
far forget the regard for truth, justice and decency which should 
characterize men in our profession, as to have induced you to 
take the chance of ruining for life the reputation and standing of 
one who is not rightfully amenable to your charge, and who has 
not otherwise heretofore given you the slightest private or personal 
provocation for your savage and mendacious attack. 

"A. RUEF. 

"San Francisco, November 6th." 

14 To hold that only 28,687 electors of San Francisco wished 
a change in the administration of San Francisco would be unjust. 
Many who were opposed to Ruef's domination remained away from 
the polls, through dissatisfaction with the management of the fusion 
movement. Of the more than 40,000 who voted for the Union Labor 
ticket, were thousands of union men who were opposed to the 



The Union Labor Party Movement 21 

Not only was Schmitz re-elected by overwhelming 
majority, but the entire Ruef -selected Union-Labor 
party ticket was elected with him. 

Ruef, as Mayor Schmitz's recognized political ad- 
viser, and political agent for the Union-Labor party, 
found himself in control of every branch and depart- 
ment of the San Francisco municipal government. 


Schmitz-Ruef element. But Ruef cleverly injected the Citizens' 
Alliance issue, and the organized labor element was, because of 
this, made to vote practically solidly for the Ruef-selected candi- 
dates. The fact that voting machines were used in every precinct 
in San Francisco for the first time contributed to this. Members 
of labor unions did not understand the working of the machines, 
and were afraid to attempt to vote anything but the straight ticket. 
This dissatisfied organized labor element, two years later, con- 
tributed in no small degree to the election of Mayor E. R. Taylor 
and the re-election of District Attorney William H. Langdon, there- 
by making possible continuation until 1910 of the graft prosecution. 



CHAPTER II. 

The Ruef Board of Supervisors. 

No observer of San Francisco politics, not even 
Ruef himself, had expected the entire Union-Labor 
party ticket to be elected. The election of the Super- 
visors was the greatest surprise of all. Ruef, with his 
political intimates, had selected the Supervisorial can- 
didates, but more with a view to hold the organized 
labor vote for Schmitz than with idea of the fitness of 
the candidates for the duties involved in managing the 
affairs of a municipality of 500,000 population. 15 Not 
one of the eighteen elected was a man of strong char- 
acter. 16 Several were of fair, but by no means excep- 

15 At Ruef s trial for offering- a bribe to Supervisor Furey, 
Supervisor James L. Gallagher testified that conferences for selecting 
the Union Labor party ticket, from Sheriff down, were held at 
Ruef's office. Gallagher testified of one of these conferences: 

"The matter of the nominees for Supervisors was mentioned, 
and all that I recollect about it is that it was stated that there 
should be a good representation of prominent Union-Labor men on 
the ticket, and Mr. Ruef stated that he had that in mind, and that 
that would be done, and it was also stated that the members on 
the Board of Supervisors that were Union-Labor adherents should 
be nominated." See The People vs. Abraham Ruef, No. 1437— - 
Transcript on Appeal, Part 3, Vol. 3, page 1278. 

16 The eighteen members of the Ruef-Schmitz Board of Super- 
visors were James L. Gallagher, attorney at law; Cornelius J. Har- 
rigan, grocer; James T. Kelly, piano polisher; Thomas F. Loner- 
gan, driver of a bakery delivery wagon; Max Mamlock, electrician; 
P. M. McGushin, saloonkeeper; F. P. Nicholas, carpenter; Jennings 
J. Phillips, employed in newspaper circulation department; L. A. 
Rea, painter; W. W. Sanderson, employed in grocery store; E. I. 
Walsh, shoemaker; Andrew M. Wilson, employing drayman; George 
Duffey, contracting plumber; Charles Boxton, dentist; M. W. Coffey, 
haekman; Daniel G. Coleman, clerk; Sam Davis, orchestra musician; 
John J. Furey, blacksmith and saloonkeeper. 

At the time the graft prosecution opened, Wilson had resigned 
his position as Supervisor to take up his work as State Railroad 
Commissioner, an office to which he was elected in 1906; and Duffey 
to be president of the Municipal Commission of Public Woi*ks, to 
which office he was appointed by Mayor Schmitz. 



The Ruef Board of Supervisors 23 

tional ability. Of this type were Gallagher, an attorney 
of some prominence who acted as go-between between 
Ruef and the Supervisors ; Wilson, who was a sort of 
second man to Gallagher, and Boxton, a dentist. 

But for the most part they were men who had led 
uneventful lives as drivers of delivery wagons, bartend- 
ers and clerks. Without an exception, they saw in their 
unexpected elevation to the Board of Supervisors op- 
portunity to better their condition. Some of them 
would not, perhaps, have sought bribes ; few of them 
knew just how they could employ their office to their best 
advantage; but from the hour of their election the idea 
of personal advancement was uppermost in the minds of 
the majority of the members of the Schmitz-Ruef Board 
of Supervisors. 17 Their ignorance of the requirements 
of their office, their failure to appreciate their large 
responsibilities, and above all their ill-defined ambitions 
made them promise of easy prey for the agents of the 
public-service corporations, who were playing for spe- 
cial privileges worth millions. 

17 Supervisor E. I. Walsh in a sworn statement made to Heney, 
March 8, 1907, testified: 

"Q. And what was agreed upon there (in caucus) as to pro- 
gramme? A. I couldn't say what was agreed upon with them. 

"Q. Wasn't it arranged that every man should be treated alike 
as to money? A. It wasn't openly suggested that way; it might 
have been said among the members that way. 

"Q. That was the understanding you had. A. Yes, sir. 

"Q. That you would be all treated equally and fairly? A. I 
presume that was the way it was understood." 

Supervisor Lonergan had been promised by Supervisor Wilson 
$8000 for voting to give the United Railroads a permit to operate 
its lines under the trolley system. At a second meeting Wilson 
stated the amount would be $4000 only. Of the scene on this occa- 
sion, Lonergan testified at the trial in the case of the People vs. 
Ford, No. 817: 

"Q. What did he (Wilson) say on that occasion? A. There 
was only $4000 in it for me. 

"Q. What did you say. A. I asked him what the hell kind of 
work that was and what did he mean by it. And he shook his head 
and said that if I didn't like it, all right; something to that effect." 



24 The Ruef Board of Supervisors 

None realized this better than Ruef. From the be- 
ginning, he recognized that the likelihood of individual 
members of the board yielding to temptation to petty 
gain 18 threatened his own larger purposes. He let it 
be known that he would himself personally prosecute 
any one of them whom he discovered to be "grafting." 
Ruef was emphatic in his position that the Supervisors 
should have no financial dealings with those seeking 
special-privilege advantages. He even defined regular 
procedure for dealing with persons and corporations 
that might elect to catch the easiest way to accomplish 
their purposes by the use of bribe money. To this end 
he arranged: 

(.1) That Supervisor James L. Gallagher 19 should 
represent him on the board. The Supervisors at once 

18 Evidence of Ruef s distrust of his Supervisors was brought 
out at many points in the graft trials. When he discovered that 
individual Supervisors were, without his knowledge, taking bribes 
from the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, he 
stated to Dr. Joseph S. Poheim: 

"I see they have been trying to take my Supervisors away from 
me, but I have fixed them; I would like to see one of them throw 
me down." (See Transcript, People vs. Ruef, 1437, Part 3, Vol. 9, 
p. 4018.) In the midst of the troubles brought upon him by the 
graft prosecution, Ruef complained that "These fellows (the Super- 
visors) would eat the paint off a house, and in order to hold them 
together I had to descend to their level and take them in with me." 

Ruef was also jealous of Schmitz's activity. When he learned 
that Schmitz had promised franchises independent of him, he di- 
rected Supervisor Wilson to oppose them. "Butt in on this Parkside 
business," he said to Wilson. "Mr. Schmitz has promised the Ocean 
Shore and the Parkside; he is destroying my political influence; 
these people ought to be made to come and see me." 

19 Gallagher was by far the ablest member of the Ruef-Schmitz 
Board of Supervisors. He was by profession an attorney at law. 
In that capacity he had served first as Assistant City Attorney, and 
finally as City Attorney. For a time he was law partner with Hon. 
James G. Maguire, whose opposition, as member of Congress from 
California, to the Pacific railroads refunding measures, won him a 
national reputation. Maguire was candidate for Governor on the 
Democratic ticket in 1898, but was defeated. Gallagher had served 
as Supervisor previous to his election in 1905, and was one of the 
most experienced members of the Schmitz-Ruef board. 

At Ruef's trial on the charge of offering a bribe to Supervisor 
Furey, Gallagher testified that soon after his election in 1905, Ruef 



The Ruef Board of Supervisors 25 

accepted Gallagher, and dealt with him as Ruefs rec- 
ognized agent. 

(2) Finally Ruef arranged for a regular weekly 
caucus 20 to be held each Sunday night, on the eve of 
the regular meeting day of the board, Monday. 

The public was not admitted to these caucuses. 
Those who were admitted were Ruef, Mayor Schmitz, 
George B. Keane, 21 clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 
who also acted as secretary of the caucus, and the 
eighteen Supervisors. 

At these meetings, which were held every Sunday 
evening, Ruef was the dominating figure. Supervisor 

told him there would be a number of matters coming before the 
Board of Supervisors in which the corporations and other large 
concerns would be interested; that there would be a number of large 
deals coming before the board in which he wanted him (Gallagher) 
to represent him on the board. Gallagher accepted the agency. 

20 Gallagher testified before the Oliver Grand Jury of the nature 
of these caucuses. From his testimony the following is taken: 

"Q. They (the Supervisors) voted in the caucus and you knew 
how the vote would be. A. Yes, sir. 

"Q. And they would be bound by the caucus vote. A. That 
was understood that a man would vote at the caucus in the way 
he would vote at the meeting. 

"Q. You were understood to represent Mr. Ruef and Mr. Ruefs 
views. A. That was generally understood by members of the 
board. 

"Q. And whatever way you went meant programme. A. I 
believe Mr. Ruef told a number of them so, and that circulated 
among the others; it was generally understood by them." 

21 Keane's lasting loyalty to Ruef makes him one of the most 
interesting characters of the graft cases. He entered Ruefs employ 
in 1898 as a law clerk. He remained in Ruefs office until January, 
1902, when Mayor Schmitz took office. Keane was then made sec- 
retary to the Mayor. He served in that capacity until January, 
1906, when Ruef gained control of the Board of Supervisors. Ruef 
then made him clerk of the board. At Ruefs trial for offering a 
bribe to Supervisor Furey, Gallagher testified that Ruef told him 
that Keane should be clerk. Gallagher notified the other members 
of Ruefs decision, and that closed the incident. Keane was, how- 
ever, much more than a mere clerk. Supervisor Wilson testified 
at the Ruef trial for offering a bribe to Furey, that he (Wilson) 
owed his nomination to Keane. Keane was elected to the State 
Senate where his loyalty to Ruef in foul as well as fair weather 
made him a conspicuous and somewhat notorious character. At 
present writing, Keane is foremost in the movement to bring about 
Ruefs release from State prison. 



26 The Ruef Board of Supervisors 

Wilson, testifying at the graft trials, stated that Ruef 
took the position of "chief counsel and adviser for the 
board in matters that were to come before the board." 

Keane, as secretary of the caucus, took full notes 22 
of the proceedings and sent written notices 23 of the 
meetings to each of those who were admitted. 

The first of these caucuses was held shortly before 
the Schmitz-Ruef board took office. The organization of 
the board was provided by the Supervisors authorizing 
Ruef and Schmitz to make up the committees. Ruef 
undertook the task. He prepared the committee lists, 
and submitted his selections to Schmitz and Gallagher. 
Schmitz and Gallagher suggested unimportant changes. 
The committees were then announced to the Super- 
visors at the next caucus. There were objections raised, 
but these objections, with one exception, were denied in 
all important particulars. The organization of the 
Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors was thus perfected. 

Ruef's way seemed clear. The committee organ- 
ization of the Board of Supervisors was his own. The 
Supervisors were to hold no open meeting until they 
had met with him in secret caucus to ascertain his 

22 At Ruef's trial on the charge of offering a bribe to Super- 
visor Furey, Keane testified that these notes had been destroyed 
in the great fire of April 18-19-20, 1906. Keane testified further 
that Ruef was a constant attendant at the caucuses; that Schmitz 
was an occasional visitor; that Supervisor Gallagher presided. 

23 Notices of the caucus meetings were sent to Ruef precisely 
as though he had been a member of the Board of Supervisors. At 
Ruef's trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey, the following 
letter of notification was introduced as evidence: 

"San Francisco, June 21st, 1906. 

"Hon. A. Ruef, San Francisco — Dear Sir: I respectfully beg 
leave to notify you that the Board of Supervisors will meet in 
caucus on Sunday evening, June 24th, at 8 o'clock p. m., at Hamil- 
ton Hall, Steiner street, near Geary. Your attendance is respect- 
fully requested. 

"Yours truly, GEORGE B. KEANE, Clerk." 



The Ruef Board of Supervisors 27 

wishes. The official clerk of the board, who was also 
secretary of the caucus, was his tried henchman. Gal- 
lagher, the ablest of the Supervisors, flattered at being 
made his representative, and further bound by mer- 
cenary ties, was ready to do his slightest bidding. And 
never had entrenched boss more fruitful field for ex- 
ploitation. 

But scarcely had the new administration been in- 
stalled, than a weak point developed in Ruef s position. 
District Attorney William H. Langdon, who had been 
elected on the Ruef ticket, gave evidence that he pro- 
posed to enforce the law, regardless of the effect upon 
the administration of which he was a part, or upon 
Ruef's plans and interests. 

The first intimation the public had of Langdon's 
independent attitude came when gambling games in 
which Ruef was popularly supposed to be interested 
were raided under the personal direction of the District 
Attorney. Langdon had first attempted to close the 
places through the police department. Failing, he had 
attended to the matter himself. 24 The gamblers ap- 



24 The San Francisco Chronicle in its issue of March 8, 1906, 
said of the District Attorney's raids on the gamblers: 

"The political push and the underworld generally are astonished 
at District Attorney Langdon's unexpected outbreak. He has 
descended upon them like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky. For the 
moment even wrath is less in evidence than surprise. It was not 
expected. It is not what was paid for. It is like being murdered 
by one's dearest friend. There is a complete reversal of the usual 
experience of mankind. In most cities the lid is on and weighed 
dov/n before election but lifted and thrown away as soon as the 
votes are counted. To be allowed to run wide open before election 
and to be closed down and nailed up as soon as the new official is 
fairly seated is outside of all precedent. And all that after the most 
liberal contributions. There is a feeling in criminal circles that 
somebody is guilty of obtaining money under false pretenses. The 
District Attorney is the one official for whose friendship the law- 
breakers have the most earnest longings, and behind their closed 
doors the idle gamblers are trying to figure out what 'lay* this 



28 The Ruef Board of Supervisors 

pealed to Ruef, but Ruef was helpless. Langdon would 
not be turned from his purpose. The gamblers and 
capitalists interested in gambling establishments charged 
Langdon with political ingratitude. 

But those who were laboring for the development, 
and were opposing the exploitation of San Francisco, 
saw in Langdon's course the first sign that Abraham 
Ruef was not to have undisputed sway in San Fran- 
cisco. 25 With Langdon in the District Attorney's office 
it was still possible that the laws could be enforced — 
even against Abraham Ruef. The raiding of the gam- 
bling dens marked the beginning of the division in San 



dreadful Langdon is really on, and by what trade he has been in- 
duced to ignore all the promises expressed or implied, which those 
assumed to be able to speak for him dispersed so freely when votes 
were in demand. 

"As for the public, it was for none of these things. Among the 
decent portion of society the 'motives' of the District Attorney do 
not arouse even passing curiosity. What does interest them is 
the present vigor of his work, and the probability of his keeping 
it up." 

25 Ruef had consented to Langdon's nomination for District At- 
torney, because he considered that Langdon's intimate acquaint- 
ance with the teachers and pupils of the San Francisco public 
schools would help the ticket. For the three years preceding the 
campaign Langdon had been Superintendent of Schools at San 
Francisco. Ruef told Langdon after the election that he had no 
idea that any one other than Schmitz could be elected on the 
Union-Labor party ticket that year. When during the campaign 
Langdon began to develop strength in the contest for District At- 
torney, Ruef sent him a check for $200 for "campaign expenses," 
saying that the money had been contributed by Tirey L. Ford of 
the United Railroads. Langdon returned the check to Ruef with 
the statement that he preferred to pay his own campaign ex- 
penses. During the campaign at every meeting he addressed, 
Langdon made the statement: "The laws are on the statute 
books; all may know them. I pledge myself to the enforcement 
of these laws." To be sure, few if any paid much attention to 
what Langdon meant, but that was no fault of Langdon's. Every- 
body was to learn from the hour that he assumed the duties of 
his office that he meant just what he said. Rudolph Spreckels 
testified at the Calhoun trial that when Langdon's raids on the 
gambling dens were made public he felt that "we had a District 
Attorney who was desirous of doing his duty." The raids were 
made in February, 1906. Spreckels, Heney, Phelan, Older and 
others were already considering plans for the exposure and check 
of the reign of Ruef. 



The Ruef Board of Supervisors 29 

Francisco, with those who approached the Ruef admin- 
istration with bribe money on the one side, and those 
who resisted with the check of law enforcement on 
the other. 



CHAPTER III. 
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled. 

The decade ending 1910 was for California an era 
of extraordinary enterprise and development. A third 
transcontinental railroad, the Western Pacific, was com- 
pleted; vast land-holdings as large as 40,000 acres in a 
body were cut up into small tracts and sold to settlers ; 
waters brought to the land by vast irrigation enter- 
prises increased the land's productiveness three and even 
ten fold; petroleum fields, enormously rich, were opened 
up and developed; the utilization of the falling waters 
of mountain streams to generate electric power, brought 
cheap light and power and heat to farm as well as to 
city factory. The Spanish war had brought thousands 
of troops to the coast. Practically all of them passed 
through San Francisco. This particular activity had its 
influence on local conditions. The State's population 
increased from 1,485,053 in 1900 to 2,377,549 in 1910. 

Up to the time of the San Francisco fire, April 18, 
1906, San Francisco, of the cities of the State, profited 
most by this development. San Francisco bank clear- 
ances, for example, increased from $1,029,582,594.78 for 
the year ending December 31, 1900, to $1,834,549,788.51 
for the year ending December 31, 1905, a gain of 80 
per cent. 

San Francisco's increase in population during those 
five years, can, of course, only be estimated. On the 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 31 

basis of the registration for the 1905 municipal election, 
approximately 98,000, San Francisco had, at the time 
of the 1906 disaster, a population of about 500,000, an 
increase from the population of 342,782 shown by the 
1900 census of practically 50 per cent, in five years. 26 

The rapid increase in population, the sustained pros- 
perity of the community, and its prospective develop- 
ment made San Francisco one of the most promising 
fields for investment in the country. 

The public service corporations were quick to take 
advantage of the San Francisco opportunity. Those 
corporations already established sought to strengthen 
their position ; new corporations strove for foothold in 
the promising field. Thus, we find the Home Telephone 
Company, financed by Ohio and Southern California 
capitalists, seeking a franchise to operate a telephone 
system in opposition to the Pacific States Telephone and 
Telegraph Company, which was already established. 
And we find the Pacific States Company taking active 
part in municipal politics to prevent the Home fran- 
chise or any other opposition telephone franchise being 
granted. The corporation holding the light and power 
monopoly, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, had 
by the time of the third Schmitz inaugural, practical 
control of the San Francisco field. But it was face to 
face with a clamor for reduction of gas rates. The 
company was charging one dollar a thousand for gas. 
The Union-Labor party platform of 1905 pledged the 

26 Patrick Calhoun, in a letter to the press, dated March 21, 
1906 — less than a month before the great fire — stated that the time 
was near when the San Francisco street-car system would have 
to serve a million people. The 1910 census, taken four years after 
the fire, gave San Francisco a population of 416,912. 



32 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 

Board of Supervisors to a seventy-five-cents-per-thou- 
sand rate. 

Another matter of tremendous importance to the 
growing municipality was that of the supply of water. 
The Spring Valley Water Company had a monopoly 
of this necessity, but demand for municipal water to 
be brought from the Sierras was strong. A committee 
of experts had been appointed to pass upon the various 
sources of supply. Ruef appeared before them as 
spokesman for the Supervisors. The experts resigned 
when it was made clear to them that instead of being 
permitted to make an adequate study of all available 
sources of supply they were to report upon the Bay 
Cities project alone. 27 After the ousting of the Schmitz- 
Ruef administration the Bay Cities project was ignored 
and bonds authorized to bring water from Hetch- 
Hetchy valley. The Spring Valley Water Company, 
however, has been successful in blocking this project, 
and in 1914, San Francisco seems almost as far away 
from realizing her ambition for a supply of pure water 
as in 1905-6 when Ruef and his followers were at the 
height of their power. 

The public-service problem which was attracting the 
most attention at the time of the great fire, was that of 
street-car transportation.' The principal lines had passed 
into the hands of the United Railroads. 28 The corporation 

27 Ruef testified before the Grand Jury that the water deal 
would have been the most important pulled off by the Board of 
Supervisors. He testified that he had told Gallagher to tell the 
members of the Board there would be more money in it than had 
been received in any other deal. Ruef gave Gallagher to under- 
stand that the amount to be divided would be as much as $1,000,000. 

28 The United Railroads was controlled by Eastern capital. Be- 
fore the entrance of the United Railroads into the San Francisco 
field, California capital had dominated in purely local public utilities. 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 33 

had, at the time of Schmitz's election in 1905, practically 
a monopoly of the San Francisco street-car service. 

The company's principal lines were operated by the 
cable system. But fully five years before the fire, all 
traction officials as well as the general public, recog- 
nized that San Francisco had outgrown the cable road. 
It was admitted that electric lines must be substituted 
for the cable, but there was sharp division as to the 
character of the electric lines which should be installed. 
The officials of the United Railroads proposed the over- 
head trolley method of propulsion; the public, so far as 
it could find expression, declared for the underground 
conduit system. 29 In taking this position, the public 
was in reality backing up the municipal engineers, who 
had been sent to Eastern States to investigate electric 
transportation systems, and who had found in favor 
of the conduit and against the trolley. 80 



29 The public's opposition to the overhead trolley system was 
that the poles and wires would be a disfigurement of what were 
regarded as the best streets; that the wires were dangerous, and 
would interfere with the work, of firemen in fighting fires ; that San 
Francisco was as much entitled as Washington and New York to 
the best system. Rudolph Spreckels at the trial of Patrick Cal- 
houn for offering a bribe, testified as to his own opposition: 

"I believed that the overhead trolley was unsightly; that it in- 
creased the risk of fire; that it was dangerous; that it was noisy 
and unsightly. I believed from my own observation of the opera- 
tion of the underground conduit system in other cities that it was 
preferable, that it was more sightly, just as rapid, and in every 
way more in keeping with a city of the size and importance of San 
Francisco. Having been born here, and having large property in- 
terests I felt it my duty, as I always have, and hope I always shall, 
to protect the interests of this community and to protect the inter- 
ests of its citizens and its property owners. That was my purpose 
in opposing that franchise and that grant." 

30 As early as 1901, C. E. Grunsky, at that time City Engineer, 
was directed by the Board of Supervisors to gather data on the 
operation of electric roads under the conduit system. Grunsky' s 
findings were to the effect that conduit-electric roads were rapidly 
replacing other types of street railroads. 

The city also employed J. C. H. Stutt as consulting engineer, 



34 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 

The San Francisco Merchants' Association, however, 
apparently dissatisfied with the reports of the engineers 
employed by the municipality, employed Mr. William 
Barclay Parsons to report on the relative merits of the 
trolley and the conduit systems. 

Mr. Parsons took issue with the city's engineers, and 
recommended the trolley as against the conduit. 31 The 
directors of the Merchants' Association thereupon de- 
clared for the trolley system. 

Criticism of this action of the directors was followed 
by submission of the question to a referendum vote of 
the Association membership. The members voted in 
opposition to the directors, declaring against the trolley 
and for the conduit. 32 

and sent him to New York and Washington to inspect and report 
upon the conduit systems in operation in those cities. 

He reported that the system was giving satisfaction in both 
cities, and in many cases was being substituted for the trolley. 
Engineer Stutt in comparing the two systems said: 

"As between the overhead system and the conduit-electric sys- 
tem, it is natural for private corporations to prefer the overhead 
trolley system on acount of the first cost of roadbed construction, 
which is more than twice as great for the conduit system. The 
conduit system leaves the street open with the view unobstructed 
by poles, conductors, feed, guard and supporting wires and without 
the menace to the public and especially to the firemen, always in- 
herent in the bare overhead electric conductor." 

This report was widely quoted during the overhead -trolley- 
conduit agitation that was a feature of a greater part of Mayor 
Schmitz's administrations. 

31 Mr. Parsons found for the overhead trolley on the following 
general grounds: 

(1) That a uniform system was necessary. 

(2) That the lines must be extended to the suburbs. 

(3) That operation by overhead trolley is more satisfactory 
than by the conduit system. 

(4) That the greater part of the roads could be operated under 
trolley only. 

32 Several questions were presented. The following is the vote 
as given in the Merchants' Association Review, the organization's 
official publication, for February, 1906: 

"TOTAL VOTE OF MEMBERS, 364. 
"1 — Do you favor Mr. Parsons's view of a uniform system of over- 
head trolley lines throughout the entire city, including a central 
line of ornamental trolley poles, with lights furnished by the 
Railroad company between the tracks on Market Street, and a 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 35 

But the most determined opposition to the installa- 
tion of the trolley system came from improvement clubs, 
whose purpose was to promote the best development of 
San Francisco. 

Prominent among these organizations were the Im- 
provement and Adornment Association, 33 the Sutter 
Street Improvement Club 34 and the Pacific Avenue Im- 

trolley line with ornamental poles and lights furnished by the 
Railroad upon Sutter Street? 

"Votes received — Yes, 121; No, 204. 
"2 — Do you favor an overhead trolley system throughout the city 
except on Market Street? 

"Votes received— Yes, 67; No, 212. 
"3 — Do you favor an underground conduit system for Market Street 
and for the streets with cable lines leading into Market Street 
in the central downtown district and in the adjacent residence 
district, the remainder of the system to be overhead trolley? 
"Votes received — Yes, 198; No, 84. 
"4 — Irrespective of what shall be done on any other streets, which 
system do you favor for Sutter Street: (a) an underground con- 
duit, or (b) an overhead trolley line if equipped with ornamental 
poles and lights furnished free by the Railroad company, or (c) 
an improved cable system? 

"Underground 

Conduit Trolley Cable 

"First Choice 217 93 5 

"Second Choice 42 83 62 

"Third Choice 7 14 94 

"5 — Do you favor changing the cable lines on Nob Hill to electric 
lines by tunneling the hill and constructing a winding driveway 
with parks on California Street, as proposed in Mr. Parsons' s 
report? 

"Votes received — Yes, 158; No, 140." 
This vote was taken after an extended debate at a banquet 
given by the Association in which Patrick Calhoun, president of 
the United Railroads, argued for the trolley system, and Frank J. 
Sullivan, president of the Sutter Street Improvement Club, spoke 
for the conduit. 

33 The Improvement and Adornment Association employed D. 
H. Burnham to draw plans for the development of San Francisco. 
These plans, while drawn to attain a maximum of utility, were in- 
tended to secure a maximum of beauty as well. Streets were to be 
widened, boulevards built, parks established. The carrying out of 
these plans would have made San Francisco one of the most beau- 
tiful cities of the world. Their preparation cost the association 
$17,500. Mr. Burnham volunteered his own services. 

34 The objection of the Sutter- Street Improvement Club to the 
overhead trolley was set forth in the following statement, issued 
less than a month before the great fire of 1906: 

"The Sutter Street Improvement Club is unalterably opposed to 
the construction of an overhead trolley line on the Sutter Street 
system. We desire that the public should have no misconception of 
our position. W r e propose to contest to the end any attempt to get 



36 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 



provement Club. The membership of these organiza- 
tions consisted of some of the largest owners of San 
Francisco properties. The leaders were comparatively 
young men, natives of San Francisco, whose interests 

an overhead trolley on the entire Sutter Street system, and for 
that purpose we pledge ourselves, and promise to provide the 
necessary counsel to maintain our position in the courts. We want 
the public with us in this fight, as the fight is being made in the 
interests of the whole people. 

"Our own investigations make us absolutely certain that if the 
public understands the true situation, it will not be misled by the 
specious arguments of the United Railroads. The conduit electric 
system, despite what the United Railroads and its representatives 
may say, is practicable, safe, efficient and superior to an overhead 
trolley. We are further satisfied that the company is seeking, by 
an offer of $200,000 which they offer to the people, to save itself an 
expense of several million dollars, which the conduit electric system 
would cost, if it should be required to reconstruct all its lines using 
the conduits; but we believe — and we are certain that the citizens 
of San Francisco will agree with us in this — that since the United 
Railroads, through the watering of its stock, has already made 
many millions of dollars out of its properties, and is now taking, 
and will take many millions of profits from our people, that it can 
afford to contribute to San Francisco the cost of the most attractive 
and efficient system of electric railroads. The United Railroads 
has put forward many arguments which have been and are easily 
met: 

"First: It contended, as the public will remember, that the con- 
duit electric system was impracticable on account of the accumu- 
lation of rain water in its conduits. This claim it has been forced 
to abandon. 

"Second: It proclaimed loudly that the added cost of construc- 
tion of an electric conduit was such that the life of its franchise 
would not justify the outlay. Now, they have abandoned this claim, 
and assert that it is not the cost of construction, but that there are 
other reasons. 

"Third: They have declared that a uniform system was de- 
sirable. They now admit that a completely uniform system is 
impracticable, owing to grades, making it necessary to operate some 
lines by cable. Their only contention now is that the overhead 
trolley system is more efficient than either the cable or conduit 
electric system. 

"Mr. C. E. Grunsky is our authority for the statement that in 
making the change from the conduit electric to the trolley, in 
passing from city to suburbs, there are no objectionable features, 
nor danger. Sir Alex. B. W. Kennedy, consulting engineer to the 
London County Council, in recommending the adoption of the conduit 
electric system for London's municipal street railways, said: 
'There is no difficulty in arranging the cars so that they can be 
run from the underground (conduit) to the overhead and vice versa, 
cither with no stoppage at all at the point of change, or with a 
stopping of only a few seconds. There is no engineering difficulty 
whatever in using a mixed tramway system, i. e., partly under- 
ground (conduit) and partly overhead.' 

"We would suggest that the public compare the present over- 
head trolley system, operated by the United Railroads these many 
years in this city and county, with the service rendered by the Cali- 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 37 

were inseparably wrapped up in the community, and 
who aimed to promote the best possible development of 
the city of their birth and fortunes. 

Prominent in this group were Rudolph Spreckels 35 

fornia Cable Railway. There is no overhead trolley system in San 
Francisco to-day which surpasses the service given by the Cali- 
fornia Street Company. 

"It is claimed that the public will be given a speedier and more 
efficient service if the overhead trolley is permitted. We ask the 
thousands of citizens who have been compelled to wait for overhead 
trolley cars, and to stand up in those overhead vehicles, whether 
or not the overhead trolley has thus afforded them satisfactory 
service? If we may judge the future by the experience with the 
overhead trolley of the past, it means fewer cars (hence less expense 
to the United Railroads), overcrowding and discomfort of passen- 
gers. The only advantage which thus far has come from the sys- 
tem seems to be to the company itself. It employs fewer men as 
a result of that system, but the comfort and convenience of the 
public have not been substantially bettered by it as against the 
cable. 

"Before asking our people to give them an overhead trolley sys- 
tem throughout the whole city, the United Railroads would do well 
to show on some one of their overhead trolley lines now in opera- 
tion a frequent, efficient and satisfactory service to the public. We 
do not want for San Francisco an extension and perpetuation of 
the unsightly, noisy, dangerous, uncomfortable and inefficient sys- 
tem of overhead trolleys as operated by the United Railroads 
to-day. 

"Citizens of San Francisco: Be not deceived by the selfish and 
specious arguments put forward by the United Railroads. If the 
public will stand together, we will win out in this fight; and, if it 
should be necessary to that end, the supporters of our organiza- 
tion will put before our citizens a plan for building a complete con- 
duit electric system of railroads for San Francisco, to be built, in 
the first instance, by our people, but with a provision giving to the 
city an option to purchase the same at any time in the future at 
actual cost and interest, so that municipal ownership of the said 
system may result just as soon as the city is ready for it. 

"All that we ask is that the people stand fast, and save their 
city from what we believe would be a calamity from which it would 
not recover in the next twenty-five years. 

"Respectfully. 

"Frank J. Sullivan, Rudolph- Spreckels, Julius Rosenstirn, Geo. W. 
Merritt, W. D. McCann, Houghton Sawyer. Edward P. E. Troy, 
Secretary." 

35 Rudolph Spreckels is a native of San Francisco. At seven- 
teen he was employed in his father's (Claus Spreckels) sugar re- 
finery at Philadelphia. The Spreckels refinery was at the time in 
a life-and-death struggle with the "Sugar Trust." Young Spreckels 
was given his first lessons in the methods employed by the "trust" 
elements to crush competition. His Philadelphia training in large 
degree prepared him for the work which later he was to do at 
San Francisco. At twenty-two he became president of the Ha- 
waiian Commercial and Sugar Company, owners of one of the 
largest sugar plantations of the Hawaiian Islands. The venture 
had been a losing one. Spreckels put it on a paying basis within 



38 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 



arid James D. Phelan, 36 rated among the heaviest prop- 
erty-owners of San Francisco. These men were ready 
to join with the United Railroads in any plan which 
proposed the highest development of the street-car serv- 
ice. 37 On the other hand, they were prepared to oppose 



a year, and sold it at large profit. Before he was twenty-five he 
had become a millionaire in his own right. He has been engaged 
in business at San Francisco for many years, but only when moved 
by corrupt conditions to take up the fight for honest government 
did he become active in politics. He financed the graft prosecu- 
tion. He has since taken active part in California politics, but 
has steadfastly refused to accept public office, preferring to do 
his work as a private citizen. 

36 James D. Phelan is a native of San Francisco. He is one 
of the largest owners of real estate in San Francisco and in Cali- 
fornia. From his youth he has taken keen interest in public af- 
fairs. He was chairman of the Charter convention of 1900 which 
framed San Francisco's present municipal Charter. He was Mayor 
of San Francisco from 1896 to 1902. After the San Francisco fire 
he headed the Relief Committee and was largely instrumental in 
directing the work of rehabilitation. President Roosevelt desig- 
nated him by proclamation to receive funds for the relief work, 
and to use the United States Mint as depository. In 1900 the 
Democratic minority in the State Legislature gave him compli- 
mentary vote for United States Senator. In 1914 he was elected 
to the United States Senate, being the first Federal Senator from 
California to be elected by direct vote of The People. Senator 
Phelan has for many years been close friend and business asso- 
ciate of Rudolph Spreckels. He was one of the heaviest backers 
of the graft prosecution. 

37 Rudolph Spreckels testified at the trial of Patrick Calhoun: 
"I suggested to Mr. Calhoun one thing, that if it was a question 

of the length of the franchise, of the length of life of the present 
franchise, standing between the people getting the system which I 
believed it was entitled to, I would personally be glad to do what- 
ever was in my power to have the Charter amended so that they 
might enjoy a longer term of franchise, to work out the difference 
in cost; but that I believed it was all important that San Francisco 
should have the very best of street-car service obtainable." 

United Railroads officials objected to the conduit system on the 
ground that the conduits would fill with water. Spreckels sug- 
gested that property owners agree to drain the conduits without 
expense to the United Railroads, thus demonstrating their prac- 
ticability, on the understanding that if the conduit system were 
found to be practical it should be installed. But in this the United 
Railroad officials would not acquiesce. (See testimony taken at 
the Calhoun trial.) The following is taken from Charles S. 
Wheeler's testimony given at the Calhoun trial: 

"Mr. Heney: Q. Did not the property owners on Sutter street 
and the property owners on Pacific avenue, Mr. Rudolph Spreckels 
and Mr. Phelan in particular, state that they would not oppose the 
United Railroads obtaining a franchise or permit for the under- 
ground conduit on Sutter street? 

"Mr. Stanley Moore: That is objected to, if your Honor please. 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 39 

any attempt to exploit the service to the detriment of 
San Francisco. 3 ' 

as calling for the conclusion of the witness and the mental mind 
and statement and hearsay of other persons. 

"Mr. Heney. I am not asking for their mental mind. I am 
asking about direct statements at these meetings of committees of 
the Board of Supervisors. 

••The Court: I will overrule the objection. 

"Mr. Stanley Moore. We take an exception. 

"A. I have [heard] both of them make such statements; Mr. 
Phelan in substance before the Board of Supervisors, and I have 
heard Mr. Spreckels make it in the Supervisors' chambers." (See 
Transcript of Testimony, page 3197.) 

33 Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads, had sev- 
eral conferences with Rudolph Spreckels on the questions involved 
in the street-car situation. Of these conferences spreckels testified 
at the Calhoun trial: 

"Mr. Calhoun stated that he was very anxious to obtain the 
overhead trolley privilege, that he understood that I was actively 
opposing it, and he wanted to know whether I was open to convic- 
tion on the subject. I told him that my mind was entirely free, that if 
he could prove to my satisfaction that the underground conduit was 
not feasible that I "would have no objection. I told him that the 
arguments that he had presented, namely, that the Sutter street 
system could not be converted into an underground conduit system 
because of the accumulation of water at some number of points — 
I think 16 were mentioned — was hardly worth while urging since 
Mr. Holland, a former president of the United Railroads, had, 
together with Mr. Chapman, urged that reason, and I related to Mr. 
Calhoun that I had questioned Mr. Chapman and Mr. Holland at 
length in regard to it and had satisfied myself that their reasons 
then urged were not legitimate or reasonable; that during the 
conversation with Mr. Holland I had asked him to state all of the 
reasons that he had for desiring the overhead and urging against 
the installation of the underground conduit; that Mr. Holland and 
Mr. Chapman had both assured me that the only reason was the 
fact that it was an engineering impossibility; that the accumula- 
tion of water in the conduits during the rainy season would pre- 
vent the successful operation of the cars, that there would be 
repeated interruptions and general dissatisfaction as the result. I 
then proposed to Mr. Holland, I said: 'If that is the only reason 
and you can convince me that that is true I have no objection to 
withdrawing my opposition, but I want to propose this: Suppose I, 
or the property owners on the system involved, agree to pay the 
expense of the proper drainage of those conduits, and succeed for a 
period of twelve months in treating the conduit drained at those 
points you indicate, and succeed during that entire term to keep 
them free from water, so that you and your engineers will be 
obliged to admit that there was not one hour during the twelve 
months during which you could not successfully operate an under- 
ground system, will you then agree to install that system?' Mr. 
Holland and Mr. Chapman looked at one another and finally said 
'Well, no, we cannot do that.' Then I said: 'Gentlemen, you are 
wasting my time and your own because your argument is not the 
truth and is not the only reason you are urging, or that is prompting 
you to object to putting in that system.' 

"Mr. Holland then proceeded and asked me how I proposed to 
insure that result and I told him I was not an engineer, but that 



40 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 

A conference of the directors of the Improvement 
and Adornment Association with officials of the United 

common sense told me and indicated to me that it might be pos- 
sible to carry off the water at those points through an ordinary- 
stone sewer-pipe and distribute the accumulated waters to the 
various streets running parallel to Sutter street, and in that way 
carrying it off and keeping the conduits free from water. Mr. Cal- 
houn said: 'Well, there are other reasons — the question of a uni- 
form system.' He urged very strongly that it would be a very de- 
sirable thing to avoid transferring, or it would be an exceedingly 
nice thing if a man could go to his home without transferring, and 
have a uniform system of cars operating over all of the system. I 
told Mr. Calhoun it was hardly a possible thing, that no man would 
want to stand at any street corner and wait for fifteen or twenty 
cars to go by until some one car of a particular brand would come 
along which would take him to the particular part of the city he 
cared to go to. Then Mr. Calhoun wanted to know if the matter 
couldn't be compromised, whether I would be satisfied, if the United 
Railroads would agree to construct an underground conduit system 
on Sutter street from Market to Powell. He wanted to know also 
about constructing an underground conduit on Market street, and 
I told him no, that this did not enter into my calculations, that I 
was looking to the welfare of the city of San Francisco, that it did 
not involve merely getting what I wanted in front of the particular 
properties in which I was personally interested, and I told him that 
the reasons that had been urged against the granting of an over- 
head trolley — that it was unsightly, dangerous and noisy and not 
the most modern system, was my objection, and that it held good 
for the entire city and not alone on the streets in which I was 
interested as a property owner. Mr. Calhoun urged further the 
desirability of the overhead trolley, that it had given satisfaction 
elsewhere, and I suggested that he might first make the street 
cars then operated by the overhead trolley in San Francisco a 
success and satisfactory to the people; that I felt that it was far 
from a success, and personally, as one of the largest propery-owners 
on Ellis street, I would emphatically prefer the ordinary cable 
system to the electric lines that they were then operating. Mr. 
Calhoun asked for another appointment and it was had I think on 
the following morning, a meeting at the same place, at the Canadian 
Bank of Commerce; I think our meeting on that occasion was held 
in the office of the manager, Mr. Kains. 

"Q. What was said there? A. I will not be absolutely certain 
as to whether all that I have related occurred at the first interview, 
or whether some that I will relate as having occurred now, did 
not occur on the first interview. The two meetings were close to- 
gether, and the subjects that I will relate may have occurred, some 
of them in the previous meeting and some in the latter. Mr. Cal- 
houn proceeded to ask me about Pacific avenue. He said: 'Would 
you be satisfied if we agreed to operate the underground conduit 
system on Sutter to Powell, on Market to Valencia, running it, if 
we changed the system on the Pacific avenue line — to agree to put 
in the conduit there, otherwise maintaining the cable?' And he 
also proposed that it might be a nice thing to withdraw the entire 
street railway system from Pacific avenue, making of that street a 
boulevard, and placing overhead trolley on Broadway where there 
was no car line. He said, 'Of course, Mr. Spreckels, you are an 
owner of carriages and automobiles, and I suppose you don't use 
the street-cars, and it would be more desirable from the standpoint 
of a property owner to have your residence under those circum- 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 41 

Railroads was finally arranged. 39 The meetings were 
held in March, 1906, less than a month before the great 
fire. There were, before the attempted adjustment was 
abandoned, several sessions. 

The citizens urged Patrick Calhoun, president of the 
United Railroads, to give up his trolley design for 
Market and Sutter streets. As a compromise, he sub- 
stantially agreed to build the. underground conduit as 
far as Powell on Sutter, and as far as Valencia on 
Market, picking up the trolley on Valencia, McAllister, 
Hayes and Haight streets. The Adornment Committee 
directors wanted the conduit system on Sutter street 
extended as far as possible, and held out for Van Ness 

stances on a boulevard than on a street having a street-car service 
with the attending objections.' I told Mr. Calhoun that my fight 
was not a selfish one, that I did have carriages and automobiles, 
that I did not use the street- cars and had no need for them, but that 
I had in mind the rights of other people living on the street — that 
there were many people living on the street who were not so for- 
tunate as I, who did not own carriages and did not own auto- 
mobiles and had undoubtedly been brought to buy their property 
on Pacific avenue because of the fact that it had a street-car 
service there. Mr. Calhoun also in one of these interviews said 
that he would tunnel Powell street hill commencing at Sutter and 
make that the most important transferring point in San Francisco. 
I asked Mr. Calhoun at the time whether it was because I was 
interested in property at the corner of Sutter and Powell. Mr. 
Calhoun expressed surprise and said he didn't know that I was an 
owner of property there. I think that in substance was the con- 
versation as I remember it." 

39 Patrick Calhoun, Tirey L. Ford and Thornwell Mullally were 
among the officials representing the United Railroads at the con- 
ference. At the meeting, first mention of $200,000 in connection 
with the proposed change in the street-car system was made. 
Citizens had contended that the objection of the United Railroads 
in opposing the conduit system was the difference in the initial 
cost of installation. This point came up, and President Calhoun 
stated that he would, if the trolley system were allowed, give the 
difference between the cost of installing the two systems, for any 
public purpose. This difference, Calhoun stated, would be about 
$200,000. Turning to James D. Phelan, of the Adornment Com- 
mittee, Calhoun stated that the money could be used in extending 
the so-called Park Panhandle, part of the Burnham plans, and a 
matter in which Phelan was greatly interested. Phelan replied 
that San Francisco would not accept money for any such purpose, 
and was able to construct the Park Panhandle if the people 
wanted it. (See testimony of James D. Phelan at the trial of The 
People vs. Patrick Calhoun for offering a bribe, page 2750.) 



42 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 

avenue. Calhoun would not consent to install the con- 
duit beyond Powell. 

In the midst of this deadlock, the San Francisco 
Chronicle published what purported to be reports of the 
several conferences. Up to that time there had been no 
publication of the meetings. 

Following the Chronicle publication, Calhoun, in a 
letter to members of the Adornment Association, de- 
clared the information contained in the Chronicle article 
to be inaccurate, 40 and offered to let the people decide 
whether they wanted a conduit system on Market street 
to Valencia, and on Sutter street to Powell, or a uni- 
form all-trolley system throughout the city. 

Mr. Calhoun's suggestion seemed reasonable until he 
stated in an interview that by the people he meant the 
Board of Supervisors. 

He was asked how he proposed to ascertain the 
wishes of the people. 

"I should suggest," he is reported as replying, "that 
the matter be referred to the decision of the Board of 

40 The Chronicle in its issue of March 23, in referring to Mr. 
Calhoun's letter practically charged him with lack of good faith. 
The Chronicle said: 

"The alleged 'inaccuracy' of the Chronicle's interesting report 
of the compromise reached by the United Railroads and the Society 
for the Adornment of the City proves to be that the electric con- 
duit in Sutter street is to stop at Powell street instead of extending 
to Polk street, as proposed, and which is the least which should 
have been accepted if any compromise whatever was to be made. 
"We shall be greatly surprised if when the changes are finally made 
there is not a great deal less conduit than Mr. Calhoun now seems 
to agree to. We gravely doubt whether Mr. Calhoun expects to 
construct a foot of conduit in this city. However, he does agree 
to do so under certain conditions and we shall see what we shall 
see. ... It does look as though some settlement of the matter 
would be reached, as the United Railroads have receded from their 
iron-clad determination not to consider the electric conduit at all. 
When that is accomplished we shall speedily see the last of the 
cables south of California street, a consummation as devoutly wished 
by the people as was the introduction of the cable In place of the 
horse-car a quarter of a century ayo." 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 43 

Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is a public 
body selected by the people, and represents the ideas 
and wishes of the people of the city." 

The reply was not well received. The Supervisors 
were even then under suspicion of corruption. Less 
than a fortnight before, March 10, the Examiner had 
called the board's action on an ordinance which was sup- 
ported by the Home Telephone Company "suspicious," 
and had stated that the board had "made the mistake 
of acting as a bribed Board of Supervisors would have 
acted." 41 



41 It was openly charged that money had been used to put this 
franchise through the preliminary steps necessary for its granting. 
The Examiner in its issue of March 10, some five weeks before the 
fire, said: 

"The Supervisors owe it to themselves to bring back the tele- 
phone franchise order for further consideration. Since the hasty 
vote on the ordinance last Monday ugly rumors have been the 
measure. The regard of the Supervisors for the good name of the 
Board demands that they should clear the record of the SUS- 
PICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES that surround the vote on the order. 

"The present Board of Supervisors was elected on a platform 
that pledged its members to a municipal ownership programme. 
Among the purposes specifically announced was the ACQUISITION 
OF A TELEPHONE PLANT to be owned and operated by the city. 

"Yet the FIRST ACT OF THE BOARD in dealing with a pub- 
lic utility question is to favor an ordinance granting a franchise 
for fifty years to a private corporation without proper compensa- 
tion to the city and WITHOUT ANY CONTRACT that would 
enable the city to buy out the plant at a just appraisement when 
the time comes to acquire a municipal telephone system. 

"The bill was introduced after a brief hearing and passed to 
print on the 26th of February. On the 5th of March it was 
passed to a vote in the Board of Supervisors without discussion. 
One of the members of the Board who rose to explain his vote was 
shut off with such indignity that he left the Supervisors' chamber. 
Nor, indeed, did all the members know what they were voting on; 
for one of the Supervisors later in the session asked if the tele- 
phone franchise was not to be called up, and was surprised to be 
told that it had already been passed upon. 

"This sort of 'gum-shoe' legislation will not do for San Fran- 
cisco. It inevitably rouses the suspicions of crookedness that have 
been hawked about the streets since Monday last. 

"A telephone franchise is not a matter to be treated lightly. It 
is an affair of more moment than passing a street or even of 
fixing a water rate. It deserves the deepest consideration, for the 
division of service between two companies creates a confusion in 
business that should be taken carefully into account. It is only 
the wretched service given by the old company that has brought 
the backing of a certain popular support to the advent of a new 



44 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 

Later on, the Supervisors themselves confessed to 
having been bribed to grant the telephone franchise. 
The public, not at all blind to what was going on, be- 
lieved, even at the time Mr. Calhoun made his sugges- 
tion, although there was no proof, that the Supervisors 
had been bribed. 

San Francisco was opposed to any plan that would 
put trolley cars on the city's best streets. Submission 
of the issue to the people would have been popular. 
Mr. Calhoun's proposal that it be left to the Supervisors 
was met with suspicion, and open distrust of Mr. Cal- 
houn's motives. 

In answer to the criticism which Mr. Calhoun's sug- 
gestion had aroused, Mr. Calhoun, in a second letter to 
the Adornment Association, withdrew his offer to sub- 
mit the question to the people, and announced the in- 
tention of his company to proceed with preparation of 
a plan for a uniform trolley system to be installed 
wherever the grades would permit. 42 

company. The manner in which the obvious evils of a division of 
service can be lessened requires much more thought than has yet 
been given, and many changes in the ordinance should be made 
unless the last state of the San Francisco telephone service is to be 
worse than the first. 

"It is the duty of the Supervisors to recall the ordinance, 
answer the rumors of crooked work by seeing that everything is 
carried on above board and in the open, and treat the franchise 
in accordance with their anti-election pledges to the people. They 
cannot afford to rest under appearance of evil that now surrounds 
the late vote on the order. 

"We do not wish to believe that any undue influence was used, 
but the Supervisors must have heard the rumors that are frequent 
In the streets, and they must realize that they have made the 
mistake of acting as a bribed Board of Supervisors would have 
acted. They have broken their pledge, but happily it is not too 
late for them to correct the gross error." 

42 Mr. Calhoun's second letter, as introduced as evidence at his 
trial for offering a bribe (page 2775, Transcript, The People vs. Cal- 
houn), was as follows: 

"San Francisco, March 23. — Messrs. James D. Phelan, R. B. 
Hale, Herbert E. T^aw, Rufus P. Jennings and others— My dear 
Sirs: You will recall that, the only condition on which I consented 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 45 

This second letter was made public in March, 1906, 
less than a month before the fire. The position taken 
by the United Railroads was generally condemned. 43 

to even consider the introduction of an underground conduit on 
Market street from the ferries to Valencia, and on Sutter from 
Market to Powell, was to secure harmony and unanimity of action 
in the development of San Francisco. You will further recall that 
I distinctly stated that 'if all sides to this controversy are not 
willing: to faithfully and loyally abide by what the people of San 
Francisco may determine on this subject, the United Railroads 
prefers to urge, in the interest of the development of San Fran- 
cisco, a uniform system of overhead trolley operation.' 

"The development of the last few days, the threatened litiga- 
tion against my company, and the action of the Sutter- Street Im- 
provement Club, demonstrate that harmony and unanimity of 
action, so much to be desired, cannot be obtained, and that the 
United Railroads cannot expect all parties to the controversy 'to 
faithfully and loyally abide by what the people of San Francisco 
may determine on this subject.' On the contrary, if the people 
should elect to put an overhead on Sutter street, the address of 
the Sutter-Street Improvement Club distinctly states 'we pledge 
ourselves and promise to provide the necessary counsel to maintain 
our position in the courts.' 

"In view of these facts, I desire to inform you that the United 
Railroads will proceed to prepare a plan for the improvement of 
the transportation of San Francisco. The essential feature of 
which plan will be a modern, up-to-date, efficient and uniform sys- 
tem of electric propulsion, through the introduction of the overhead 
trolley system wherever the grades of the streets of the city will 
permit. When this plan is perfected it will be presented to the 
proper authorities of the city for their consideration. "We will be 
very glad to go over it with you. Under the circumstances, it will 
be useless for me now to furnish the preliminary plan of which we 
spoke. 

"In conclusion, permit me to express my appreciation of the 
motives which led you to seek a conference with me, and the 
earnest desire of every gentleman who participated in that confer- 
ence to reach a basis of harmonious action in order that the de- 
velopment of San Francisco might not be obstructed and delayed. 

"Very truly yours, PATRICK CALHOUN, President." 

43 The Chronicle commented upon Mr. Calhoun's new position 
as follows : 

"The letter written by Patrick Calhoun of the United Railroads 
to the committee of citizens who have sought to induce him to 
change his attitude on the subject of overhead trolleys was not in 
good taste. It exhibited corporative arrogance in its most exas- 
perating form. Mr. Calhoun is too well bred, or perhaps too 
cautious a man to tell the public to be damned, but every line of 
his communication breathes the spirit of the insolent utterance of 
William K. Vanderbilt, and the community will take it that 
way. . . . 

"There is an ill-concealed menace in Mr. Calhoun's declaration 
that the United Railroads has a plan in preparation which, when 
perfected, 'will be presented to the proper authorities of the city for 
their consideration.' As he plainly tells us that this plan provides 
for an 'efficient and uniform system of electric propulsion through 
the introduction of the overhead trolley system wherever the grades 



46 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 



But the opposition took more practical form than mere 
denunciation. A group of capitalists, headed by Claus 
Spreckels, father of Rudolph Spreckels, Rudolph Spreck- 
els and James D. Phelan, announced their intention to 
organize a street-railroad company, to demonstrate the 
practicability of operating electric cars in San Francisco 
under the conduit system. 

The plan was given immediate endorsement both by 
press and general public. The project was explained in 
detail to Mayor Schmitz, who in a published statement 
gave the enterprise his unqualified approval. 44 But 

of the city will permit,' the announcement is equivalent to a 
notification that 'the proper authorities of the city' will be appealed 
to for permission to carry out such a scheme, whether the people 
like it or not. His defiant attitude suggests that he feels pretty 
sure that the authorities will be on the side of the United Rail- 
roads against the people, but he may be mistaken on that score. 
There is a point beyond which even complaisant authorities would 
not wish to press the matter to oblige a corporation which shows 
so little regard for the desires and needs of a community from 
which it extracts over eight million dollars annually." (See San 
Francisco Chronicle, March 25, 1906.) 

44 Mayor Schmitz in his statement, said: 

"If Claus Spreckels can see his way clear to carry out his great 
purpose, the fact stands that he must be known more than ever 
as he has been known in the past, as the greatest public benefactor 
of the West. I will say, if he can see his way clear, reservedly, 
for I doubt that any citizen of this city or State can point to any 
understanding that he has announced he would accomplish, that 
he has failed to accomplish. Not only is his determination, but 
within his control is the money to carry out his determination, 
and I have yet failed to find the man that can say that any object 
can fail of accomplishment when determination and money walk 
hand in hand. 

"If Mr. Spreckels can carry out his announced desire to network 
San Francisco with railroads operated by the underground con- 
duit system, I can only say that through his wonderful ambitions 
of purpose San Francisco will take a stride forward that is won- 
derful to contemplate. Such action upon the part of Mr. Spreckels 
would place San Francisco not only in advance of any city in 
America, but would place it in advance of any city in the world 
in the battle for public control of utilities operated for the public 
benefit. The offer of Mr. Spreckels is not only one that must 
awaken the amazement, but the approbation of every public- 
spirited citizen. While the rest of the great cities of the world (as 
well as San Francisco before Mr. Spreckels made his offer) are 
puzzling to find means through which they can accomplish the 
great purpose of municipal ownership, Mr. Spreckels has come 
forward and has offered, for the good of the people, to demonstrate 
the efficiency of a system that will mean that not only shall the 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 47 

when the incorporators sought further interview with 
Mayor Schmitz, they found themselves unable to secure 
a hearing. 

The company, under the name of the Municipal 
Street Railways of San Francisco, was formed with 
Claus Spreckels, James D. Phelan, George Whittell, 
Rudolph Spreckels and Charles S. Wheeler as incorpora- 
tors. The capital stock of the company was fixed at 
$14,000,000. Of this, $4,500,000 was subscribed, ten 
per cent, of which, $450,000, was paid over to the 
treasurer. 45 

beauty of San Francisco be not sacrificed, but that the public 
desire for rapid transit shall be fulfilled. Backed with the mil- 
lions he controls, his offer is significant, and is one that we cannot 
contemplate lightly. 

"As Chief Executive of the city I can only express the hope 
that something will happen that will permit Mr. Spreckels to carry 
out his object. At one stride this would place San Francisco at 
the head of the world in the titanic struggle now waging between 
the people and the corporations for the control of those utilities 
in which the people are interested for comfort and the corporations 
for profit. Great as is his offer, it adds not only enthusiasm, but 
rekindles hope in my always expressed desire that my administra- 
tion would mark the first victory of the municipality in its fight 
to control those things that are theirs. 

"The people are on the eve of winning for themselves those 
things that are theirs. If the offer of Mr. Spreckels can be carried 
out, and I see no reason why it cannot, the battle is ended. Not 
only will San Francisco be the victor, but from the battle she 
will emerge, her beauty unmarred and her railways standing as 
exemplifications of the fact that what in science is possible is 
capable of actual and practical accomplishment." (See San Fran- 
cisco Call, March 24, 1906.) 

But in spite of this approval, after the organization of the new 
company was assured, Rudolph Spreckels found the Mayor's door 
closed to him when he attempted to secure an interview. (See 
Rudolph Spreckels' testimony at the Calhoun trial.) 

45 The purposes of the incorporators were brought out at the 
graft trials. At the Calhoun trial, when James D. Phelan, foi'mer 
Mayor of San Francisco, and one of the incorporators, was under 
cross-examination, Calhoun's attorney referred to other public 
utility ventures in which Claus Spreckels had been interested, and 
asked: 

"Q. You knew of the matter of the rival gas or competing gas 
lines, and the rival and competing electric lines, and the rival and 
competing steam railroads down the valley at the time you went 
into the corporation to put in the People's Street Railroad? A. I 
knew, and I know the effect they had; they reduced rates in both 
cases; and if our system accomplished the purpose of bringing Mr. 
Calhoun's railroad to a realization of the public desire to have a 
conduit system, our purpose would have been accomplished. It 



4 8 



The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 



With this $450,000 an experimental line, under the 
conduit system, was to be built on Bush street. 46 

The articles of incorporation provided that the fran- 
chises acquired under them should contain provisions 
for the acquisition by the City and County of San 
Francisco of the roads thus built. 47 

The new company filed its articles of incorporation 
with the Secretary of State at Sacramento on April 17, 
1906. 

In the early morning of the day following, April 18, 
came the San Francisco earthquake and fire. For the 
moment the public forgot all differences in the common 
disaster. But the lines of division between exploiter, 
and builder could not be wiped out, not even by the 
destruction of the city. The contest, which had, without 
any one realizing its full significance, been fast coming 
to a head before the fire, was to take definite shape after 
the disaster. 

was the last resort. I looked upon it, as an incorporator, as the 
last resort. We had negotiated in a friendly way for months, and 
I saw the fruit of all the conferences fade away and believed that 
arrangements had been made by Mr. Calhoun with the city admin- 
istration, and the only resort left to us to do was to build a road 
of our own to demonstrate that it was practicable and possibly 
profitable — a conduit system." 

46 As early as April 3, 1906, a petition was circulated for signa- 
tures among residents and property owners on Bush street, asking 
the Board of Supervisors to grant a franchise to operate street-cars 
on Bush street under the electric-conduit system. 

47 The San Francisco Examiner of March 31, 1906, set forth 
that "an important feature (of the plans for competing street 
railways) was that the city should have the right at the end of 
ten years or any shorter period that might be preferred, to take 
over the system and operate the same itself, the terms of the 
transfer to be such as would be just both to the builders and to 
the municipality." 

Among the purposes for which the Municipal Street Railways 
of San Francisco was formed, was set forth in the articles of in- 
corporation the following: "To accept and acquire franchises for 
street railroads, elevated railroads and subways, containing provi- 
sions for the acquisition thereof by the City and County of San 
Francisco, or such other conditions as may be lawfully inserted 
therein." 



CHAPTER IV. 
San Francisco After the Fire. 

The great San Francisco fire was brought tinder 
control Friday, April 20, 1906. The Sunday following, 
the first step was taken toward getting the scattered 
Board of Supervisors together. George B. Keane, clerk 
of the board, is authority for the statement that the 
meeting place was in a room back of Supervisor Mc- 
Gushin's saloon. 48 The ashes of the burned city were 
still hot; the average citizen was thinking only of the 
next meal and shelter for the night for himself and 
dependents. But the public-service corporations were 
even then active in furthering plans which had been 
temporarily dropped while San Francisco was burning. 

At the McGushin-saloon meeting, Keane found with 
the Supervisors Mr. Frick of the law firm of Thomas, 
Gerstle & Frick. Mr. Frick was on hand to represent 
the petitioners for the Home Telephone franchise, 
which, at the time of the disaster was pending before 
the board. 

For months previous to the fire, no subject affecting 
a San Francisco public-service corporation had, with 
the single exception of the United Railroads' scheme 
for substituting electric for cable service, created more 
discussion than the Home Telephone application for 

48 See Keane's testimony in The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Part 
3, vol. 1, page 455. 



5o San Francisco After the Fire 

franchise. There had been allegations that the progress 
which, previous to the fire, the Home Company had 
made toward securing its franchise, had been paid for, 49 
but for weeks after the fire few citizens had time to 
think about it. The people forgot for the time the 
issues which had before the disaster divided the city. 
But the agents for the public-service corporations did 
not forget. We find a representative of the Home 
Telephone Company picking his way over the hot ashes 
of the burned city to McGushin's saloon to meet the 
Supervisors that the interests of his company might be 
preserved. The developments of the graft prosecution 
indicate that even as the Home Company was seeking 
out the Supervisors, the United Railroads was getting 
into touch with Ruef. 50 

But if the corporations were quick to avail them- 
selves of the situation to secure privileges denied them 

49 See footnote 41, page 43. 

50 Supervisor Gallagher testified in the case of The People vs. 
Ruef, No. 1437, that about a week before the fire "Mr. Ruef stated 
that the United Railroads wanted to secure a permit to use elec- 
tricity upon their lines and asked me to speak to the members of 
the Board of Supervisors about it and let him know whether it 
could go through the Board, and about what amount of money it 
tvould take. I told him that I would do so." (See Transcript on 
Appeal, page 850.) Similar testimony, to show that the United 
Railroads was dealing with Ruef during the month preceding the 
fire, was brought out at trials of other defendants in the "graft" 
cases. This would make the date of Ruef's activity on behalf of 
the United Railroads about the time of Mr. Calhoun's announce- 
ment that he would proceed to present plans for the trolley system, 
to the "proper representatives" of the People (the Supervisors), 
who were even then, through Ruef, receiving bribe money from 
public-service corporations. 

Gallagher testified further (see same transcript, page 853) that 
within a week after the fire Ruef stated to him that the United 
Railroads still wanted its electric permit, and directed that Galla- 
gher find out whether such a permit could be put through the 
Board. Gallagher testified that he saw members, put the question 
to them, and reported back to Ruef that in his judgment the per- 
mit could be put through by paying each member of the Board 
the amount which Ruef had specified, $4,000. 



San Francisco After the Fire 51 

before the fire, they were also active in the work of 
rehabilitation — so far as such activity served their plans 
and purposes. 

This was well illustrated by the course of the United 
Railroads. Within a fortnight after the fire, that cor- 
poration had established efficient service over a number 
of its electric lines. For a time, passengers were car- 
ried without charge. On April 29 and 30, however. 
fares were collected from men, but not from women and 
children. With the beginning of May, fares were col- 
lected from all persons. For a time, in a glare of much 
publicity, the United Railroads contributed these col- 
lections to the fund for the relief of the stricken city. 

The Home Telephone Company had no plant to re- 
store nor authority to establish one ; but on Ruef 's sug- 
gestion it, too, contributed to the fund for the relief of 
the stricken city— $75,000. 51 

The United Railroads' activity in restoring its elec- 
tric roads, was in curious contrast to its failure to take 
advantage of the possibilities offered by its cable sys- 
tems. As some excuse for this inactivity, the corpora- 
tion's representatives alleged that the cable slots had 
been closed by the earthquake, making restoration of 
the cable roads impractical. 

The alleged closing of the slots was even used as 
argument against the conduit electric system. 52 But 

51 Supervisor Gallagher testified at graft trials that Ruef had 
told him the payment of this $75,000 to the Relief Fund was a 
good thing, as it would tend to shut off adverse criticism. But 
the Home Company people had asked that the money be not turned 
over to the Relief Fund until such time as the ordinance granting 
the franchise had been approved or the matter definitely deter- 
mined. 

52 As early as May 5, C. E. Loss, a railroad contractor, came 
out with the proposition that the city should abandon all idea of 



52 San Francisco After the Fire 

as a matter of fact, there were many to testify that the 
damage done the cable slots was not from the earth- 
quake, although the slots in the burned district had 
been warped more or less by the heat of the fire. But 
this damage was easily remedied. On the Geary-street 
road, for example, cars were run for an hour or more 
after the earthquake. The fire warped the Geary-street 
cable slot, but this was easily and cheaply remedied by 
a force of men with cold chisels and hammers. 53 

conduit systems, because the cable slots had been closed by the 
earthquake. In this, Loss was disputed by City Engineer Thomas 
P. Woodward. Woodward, in an interview printed in the Exam- 
iner on May 5, 1906, said: 

"I think Mr. Loss was mistaken when he said the earthquake 
closed the cable slots. I have not made a careful examination of 
the various roadbeds in San Francisco, but from what I have seen 
as I have gone about the city, I am inclined to think that no in- 
jury was done the cable slots by the earthquake. 

"The lines on Sacramento, California, Geary, Sutter and Haight 
streets appear to be all right outside the burned district. Where 
the metal was subjected to the intense heat, the slots are warped 
out of shape, and in some places closed." 

Loss's allegations called forth the following editorial comment in 
the Examiner of May 5th: 

"Even an earthquake shock and a conflagration do not long 
obscure the vision of certain wealthy gentlemen where there is a 
chance to turn a calamity to their individual account. 

"Before the catastrophe, San Francisco had indicated with 
great emphasis to the United Railroads that it would not permit 
the reconstruction of the cable system into an overhead trolley, 
but would insist upon a modern up-to-date conduit electric rail- 
road, the safety, utility and efficiency of which had been demon- 
strated in New York and other Eastern cities. 

"The emergency created by the destruction of the traffic sys- 
tems in the city has compelled permission for a temporary trolley 
line because it could be constructed more quickly than any other. 

"It is not intended, and the United Railroads must be made to 
realize that it will not be permitted, that the unsightly poles and 
dangerous wires will be allowed to cumber the new and more 
beautiful San Francisco, any more than it will be permitted that 
the rough shacks and sheds which temporarily shelter the people 
in parks and streets and otherwise vacant lots shall remain after 
the emergency which called them into being has ceased." 

as A. D. Shepard, vice-president and secretary of the Geary- 
street Railroad Company, gave the following statement to the 
Examiner as to the condition of the Geary-street roadbed: 

"We can run cars as far as the road goes, but the power-house 
is not ready for business. The smokestack at Geary and Bu- 
chanan streets must be built up to comply with the ordinance of 
the city before we can get a permit to build fires under the boilers. 
The smokestack should be repaired by the end of this week, and 
cars will probably be run over the road then. I cannot say just 



San Francisco After the Fire 53 

Statements from officials of the United Railroads, 
now of record, indicate that the company's cable lines 
suffered no greater damage than did other cable sys- 
tems. An affidavit of Frank E. Sharon, for example, 
who before the fire was superintendent of cables and 
stables belonging to the United Railroads, made in the 
adjustment of fire losses sustained by that corporation, 
sets forth that the company's principal cable power 
house and repair shops situate on Valencia street were 
damaged but little by the earthquake. 54 Although the 



what day we will begin to run cars. All depends upon the smoke- 
stack and the Board of Public Works. 

"Our line was not injured by the earthquake, and we ran cars 
for some time after the shake. It was the fire that drove us out 
of business. The heat warped the slot, making it narrow in places 
and wide in other spots, but this is easily remedied." (See Exam- 
iner, May 30, 1906.) 

5-1 Sharon's affidavit was introduced at the graft trials. It was 
as follows: 
"State of California, City and County of San Francisco — ss. 

"Frank E. Sharon, being first duly sworn according to law, de- 
poses and says: That he was for many years prior to April 18, 
1906, the superintendent of cables and stables belonging to the 
United Railroads of San Francisco, and situate at the corner of 
Market and Valencia streets; that on the property situate at said 
Market and Valencia streets were located what is known as the 
Market and Valencia Power House and Shops, consisting of power- 
house, stables, machine shops, special machine shops, mill, offices, 
store-rooms, sheds, etc. ; that he was such superintendent on April 
18, 1906; that on the morning of April 18, 1906, immediately follow- 
ing the earthquake he proceeded to the above described premises, 
arriving there at about 8 a. m.; that none of the buildings above 
described were materially damaged by the earthquake; that the 
walls of all the buildings were standing and intact; that the roofs 
of all the buildings were on and uninjured by the earthquake, with 
the exception of the roof of a portion of what is known as the 
power-house, which was damaged by reason of a small portion of 
the chimney adjoining the power-house on the west falling thereon; 
that the greater portion of said brick from the top of said chimney 
fell toward the south or east into the driveway; that extending 
from the base of said chimney to the crown thereof and on the 
east and west side thereof are cracks which were in said chimney 
for many years prior to the earthquake of April 18, 1906, which 
cracks were opened somewhat by said earthquake; and the boilers 
in said power-house were not injured to any extent and steam 
was kept under said boilers for some time after the earthquake; 
that in his judgment the building as a whole was intact and the 
machinery not injured in any material part of the earthquake; that 
the building- caught fire from the adjoining buildings on the east 



54 San Francisco After the Fire 

buildings were damaged by the fire, the damage to the 
contents, including the machinery by which the cable 
cars were operated, was, according to statements made 
by the United Railroads in fire-loss adjustment, com- 
paratively small. The company placed the sound value 
upon this machinery and contents, after the earthquake, 
but preceding the fire, at $70,308.80. The salvage was 
placed at $60,933.80, leaving a total fire loss of $9,375. 5S 

The cable cars, with few exceptions, were saved. 
The most serious loss of cars was on the Powell-street 
system, where sixty-four were destroyed. Only one 
Valencia-street car was burned. After both earthquake 
and fire, the United Railroads had available at least 150 
cable cars for its Market and Powell-street systems. 
This does not include the cable cars available on the 
Hayes and McAllister roads. The power-houses of 
these two last-named systems were not destroyed by 
fire. The allegation has been made that the McAllister- 
street cable was kept running for several hours after 
the earthquake. 

But whatever the possibilities for the restoration of 



and southeast late in the afternoon of April 18, 1906; said buildings 
were not dynamited nor backfired for any purpose. 

"F. B. SHARON. 
"Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of August, 
A. D. 1906. 

"CHARLES R. HOLTON, 
"Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, 
State of California." 

55 The loss included $25 damage to two engines which cost new 
$24,000; $2,000 damage to six boilers, new cost $30,000; $210 water- 
tank, cost new $350; $500 damage to pipes, valves and fittings, 
which cost new $10,500; material in store-room worth $2,000, a 
total loss; $4,800 loss of two tension carriages used for taking up 
slack of the cable. These tension carriages could very easily have 
been restored. This loss, $4,800, and the $2,000 stock loss, de- 
ducted from the total of $9,375, leaves a total loss of $2,575 to the 
machinery of a plant estimated to have cost $1 15,84k. 



San Francisco After the Fife 55 

the United Railroads' cable properties, no steps were 
taken toward that end. Instead, trolley wires were 
strung over the tracks of cable systems. Street-car 
service was one of the greatest needs of the first few 
weeks following the fire. Statements that cable prop- 
erties could not be restored were generally believed ; the 
trolley service was accepted as a matter of expediency ; 
few thought, however, that it was to be permanent. 56 



56 As late as November 13, 1906, seven months after the fire, 
the San Francisco Call published an editorial article on the trolley 
permits which showed that even then their nature was not fully 
understood. The Call said: 

"The insolent disregard of public rights in the streets by the 
United Railroads is inspired, of course, by ulterior purpose to en- 
trench the corporation in the possession of privileges, permits or 
franchises granted at a time of stress and confusion whose legality 
may and probably will be questioned later. 

"The Call does not desire to assume an attitude of hindering 
or hampering progress. We recognize fully that every new street- 
car line adds materially to the value of property within its tribu- 
tary territory. In a word, the growth of a city or a neighborhood 
is, to a considerable degree, dependent on facilities for urban 
transit. 

"But it does not follow from these considerations that fran- 
chises should be granted for nothing to any and every applicant 
who is able to construct a street railway. The right to use the 
streets is the most valuable privilege possessed by a municipality. 
It should be made to yield a corresponding revenue. 

"All this might seem so obvious as scarcely to require state- 
ment, but in practice the principles here laid down have been vir- 
tually disregarded in San Francisco. In no instance was there 
more flagrant disregard of public rights than in the wholesale 
grants of permits or franchises to construct overhead trolley lines 
made after the fire. 

"The United Railroads at the time professed to regard these 
permits as merely temporary, but that profession was not very 
long maintained. The company now declares that many, if not all. 
of these permits amount to absolute franchises in view of the 
capital invested in making the necessary changes. That is the ex- 
planation of the outrageous disregard of public rights shown in 
tearing up some five or six miles of streets at once and in different 
parts of town. This pi*ocess is obviously wasteful as a financial 
proposition, and is calculated besides to arouse general indignation. 
We find these weighty considerations disregarded on the advice of 
the corporation's lawyers, to bolster up an invalid claim to the 
possession of franchises obtained by trick and device in an hour 
of public confusion. 

"What the extent of the corporation's claim under these per- 
mits may be we are not advised, and there is no immediate means 
of finding out as long as the administration which granted these 
hole-and-corner permits remains in power. The same influences 
that made the Mayor and Supervisors so complaisant to the will 



56 



San Francisco After the Fire 



Within two weeks after the fire, the United Rail- 
roads had trolley wires strung over the cable tracks on 
Market street. The little objection made to this course 
went unheeded. The Market-street trolley cars, two 
weeks after the fire, were as welcome to The People of 
San Francisco as were the temporary shacks which were 
being erected upon the sites of the old city's finest 
buildings. Market-street trolley cars gave as sorely- 
needed transportation as the shacks gave needed shelter. 

The opening of the Market-street trolley line was 
made subject for rejoicing throughout the city. In the 
midst of this good feeling toward his company, Presi- 
dent Calhoun gave out that if allowed to place over- 
head wires on Sutter and Larkin streets, he would 
place 2,000 men at work and have both these lines in 
operation within thirty days. 57 

But the era of good feeling was not of long dura- 

of the United Railroads are still operative. It was only the other 
day that another permit for a street-car line was granted, and 
granted illegally. This administration stays bought. 

"Therefore, the streets are torn up in a dozen different parts of 
town and left in that condition untouched for months with the 
full consent of the administration. But this political condition 
is not permanent. Some of these people will go to jail. They will 
all be ousted at the next election. San Francisco has had enough 
of them. 

"The United Railroads is endeavoring to fortify one wrong by 
committing another. These things will not be forgotten in a hurry. 
We are convinced that the corporation is pursuing a shortsighted 
policy. Costly litigation must ensue to test the validity and extent 
of the overhead trolley permits. The people will not consent to 
see their most valuable property traded away by a lot of con- 
scienceless boodlers, and if it should prove that the United Rail- 
roads has been able to make two wrongs constitute one right, it 
is very certain that a movement of irresistible force will follow 
for a reduction of street-car fares. 

"We are convinced that it will pay the United Railroads to be 
fair and decent with the people of San Francisco. The present 
policy is neither fair nor decent. The service is bad, public rights 
in the streets are outraged, and, worst of all, the corporation is 
the most malign, corrupting influence in the politics of our munic- 
ipal government. There will come a reckoning." 

r>7 See statement printed in San Francisco Examiner, May 4, 
1906. 



San Francisco After the Fire 57 

tion. On May 14, less than a month after the fire, 
the Supervisors received a communication signed by 
President Calhoun as President of the United Rail- 
roads, setting forth that if the board would permit the 
use on the cable lines of the standard electric system 
in use on the company's other lines, the United Rail- 
roads would be glad to put all of their lines in com- 
mission as rapidly as could be accomplished by the most 
liberal expenditure of money and the largest possible 
employment of men. 58 

That very day, the Supervisors took the initial step 
toward granting to the United Railroads a blanket per- 



58 Calhoun's letter to the Supervisors read: 

"United Railroads of San Francisco. 
"President's Office. 

"San Francisco, May 14, 1906. 

"To the Honorable Board of Supervisors of the City of San 
Francisco — Gentlemen: The United Railroads of San Francisco re- 
spectfully represents that, notwithstanding its urgent and earnest 
efforts to provide adequate street railway transportation on the 
lines being operated, constant pressure is being applied and innu- 
merable requests are being presented to it to increase its trans- 
portation facilities. 

"The company is anxious to please the people, and is willing to 
do its part in the immediate upbuilding of the Greater San Fran- 
cisco, but owing to the unavailability of material and machinery 
for operating its cable systems, as well as the great length of 
time necessary to rebuild destroyed power-houses and reconstruct 
its cable conduits, a long time would necessarily elapse before the 
cable systems could be operated so as to give the required relief 
to traffic congestion. 

"If your Honorable Board will permit the use on the cable lines 
of a standard electric system such as is now used on the com- 
pany's other lines, we will be glad to put all of our lines in com- 
mission, and will agree to have them in complete operation wher- 
ever grades will permit as rapidly as the most liberal expenditure 
of money and the largest possible employment of men will accom- 
plish. The necessary expenditure for labor and materials to do 
this work will run into the millions, and will afford much-needed 
employment to several thousand deserving men. 

"We believe the prompt reconstruction of your lines of trans- 
portation will inspire confidence in all investing capital and greatly 
aid in the prompt rebuilding of your city. 

"We submit these suggestions for your consideration at the 
request of many of our citizens from every walk of life. 
"Respectfully, 

"PAT. CALHOUN, President." 



58 



San Francisco After the Fire 



mit, authorizing that corporation to substitute the trol- 
ley system for all its cable lines. 

Immediately, San Francisco's opposition to the trol- 
ley system was revived. All classes joined in con- 
demning the action of the board. The Sutter Street 
Improvement Club, representing large down-town in- 
terests and property holders, adopted resolutions de- 
manding that the Supervisors refuse to grant the per- 
mit. The San Francisco Labor Council, representing 
over 100 affiliated unions, with a membership of more 
than 30,000 wage earners, declared as strongly against 
such action. The press charged the United Railroads 
with taking advantage of the city's distress to force the 
trolley upon her. 59 

59 The trolley permit was passed to print on May 14. The Ex- 
aminer, in its issue of May 15, said: 

"The United Railroads, with the rapacity for which it has ever 
been noted, is seeking to capitalize the city's woe to its own ad- 
vantage. 

"Before the disaster of April 18 it had been balked in its pur- 
pose to make San Francisco a trolley town. The protests of citi- 
zens who knew that the underground system is better than the 
cheap, unsightly trolley system and had been proved safer, had 
blocked the United Railroads project. And it seemed certain that 
the scheme to cumber Market street and Sutter street with poles 
and wires was definitely stopped. 

"The emergency which demanded the swiftest possible estab- 
lishment of a transportation system, gave the United Railroads its 
opportunity to revive the discreditable scheme. As an emergency 
service nobody could object to the oveiiiead trolleys. But it was 
understood that the service was absolutely temporary in its char- 
acter and should only obtain during the pendency of present con- 
ditions. 

"Yesterday, however, there appeared out of the void of forbidden 
things an ordinance that was hastily passed to print, granting a 
franchise to the United Railroads to trolleyize its whole system. 

"It was expected evidently that this iniquitous measure could 
be sneaked through under cover of the present stress and excite- 
ment without people realizing until it was too late what had been 
done. 

"When the scheme was flushed it was still attempted to make 
it appesr that this was a temporary measure, a representation ab- 
solutely varying with the language of the ordinance. 

"But the scheme has not succeeded yet. 

"It was to be expected that, like the looters who have to be 
kept from other people's property by soldiers and police, San Fran- 
cisco's misfortune would bring out a horde of corporate ghouls 



San Francisco After the Fire 59 

Then came explanations and defense. Mayor 
Schmitz in public interviews set forth that the proposed 
permit was not a permanent measure, nor under its 
provisions could the United Railroads indefinitely oper- 
ate trolley cars in Market street. 60 The Labor Council 
which had at first adopted resolutions condemning the 
policy of granting the permit, adopted resolutions of 
confidence in the "present city administration." Presi- 
dent Calhoun himself solicited citizens to attend the 
meeting of the board at which a vote w r as to be taken 
on the proposed permit, to urge action favorable to the 
United Railroads. 61 



eager to snatch privileges during the time of disorder. But it was 
likewise to be expected that the city administration, which has 
been so alert to protect private property, would be equally alert 
to protect the precious possessions of the city. 

"The railroads can only do what the city permits, and a strong 
official scrutiny of the ordinance which was yesterday passed to 
print should result in its final defeat. 

"No matter what other claims an administration may have to 
the gratitude and respect of the citizens of San Francisco, it cannot 
afford to be known as the administration that put trolley poles on 
Market street." 

60 The day that the ordinance granting the trolley permit was 
ordered printed, Mayor Schmitz stated in an interview as published 
in the Examiner: 

"The proposed franchise is merely a temporary measure. It 
does not mean that the United Railroads can indefinitely operate 
their cars by the overhead trolley in Market street, or in the 
streets formerly occupied by cable roads. It is necessary now to 
have transportation. The cable roads cannot be repaired, I am 
told, for some time. Meanwhile, the franchise to string overhead 
wires has been granted. It can be revoked." 

61 At the Calhoun trial, William H. Sanderson testified to hav- 
ing been introduced to Calhoun by Ruef at a public meeting, a few 
days before the trolley permit was granted. He was then asked: 

"Q. What, if any, conversation then ensued between yourself, 
Mr. Ruef and Mr. Calhoun? A. Well, I stated — Mr. Calhoun was 
at that time sitting at a large table in the room, where the com- 
mittee had held its session, and he rose out of his seat, and the 
three of us held a conversation following that introduction. I 
stated to Mr. Calhoun — I asked him when the people of North 
Beach were or might expect railroad facilities, that the population 
was coming back to that portion of the city, and that other por- 
tions of the city were provided with facilities, and that we were 
compelled to walk through miles of burned district in order to get 
anywhere; and Mr. Calhoun said in reply, that if the people of 



60 San Francisco After the Fire 

Long before the board met to take final action it 
was recognized that in spite of opposition the permit 



San Francisco desired railroad facilities, the3 r should co-operate 
with the railroad company that was here to provide them with the 
same; and I said to Mr. Calhoun that I thought that we were 
ready to do anything- that the company desired us to do, and asked 
him what in particular he wished us to do, and he said: 'There is 
that trolley privilege matter before the Supervisors; that comes up 
next Monday, and you people of San Francisco ought to come down 
before that Board, that the people of San Francisco, or you, are 
vitally interested in the matter of this trolley permit.' Mr. Ruef 
then said: 'Come down before the Board next Monday, Sanderson, 
and make a talk on behalf of your organization in favor of the 
trolley permit. We will see that you get the privilege of the floor. 
A number of citizens of San Francisco will be there, and we pro- 
pose to show the press that the people of San Francisco are behind 
this permit.' I said to Mr. Calhoun: 'The papers tell me that 
this is a very valuable franchise and you ought to pay the city 
something for it.' And Mr. Calhoun said in substance that he 
thought that the company would be paying all that the privileges 
was worth if it built the road. Then I suggested to him that per- 
haps that sentiment which objected to the disfigurement of Market 
street and Sutter street by the erection of poles and wires, ought 
to be placated to some extent, and I asked him why he would not 
at least put the feed-wires under ground; and he said that that 
would entail an expense which the company at that time was not 
or did not think it advisable to meet. And then I asked him why 
he would not put the poles 200 feet apart instead of 100 as — or 200 
feet apart, as was done in European cities, and he said that the 
100-foot system was the more advisable in his opinion. And then 
Mr. Ruef said to me: 'The passage of this permit will mean im- 
mediate work for 5,000 men. We will be able to take them out of 
the camps and put them at work.' And I said to Mr. Ruef: 'That 
is all very well, Mr. Ruef, but it seems to me that there is another 
side to this question — a political side. The people of San Fran- 
cisco are at last all behind your administration. What they need 
in this crisis is leadership, and we will have to take such leader- 
ship as you give us; and now that everybody is with you, and 
even the Bulletin has quit, it is not good policy on your part to 
stir up another newspaper war. The Examiner has been your 
friend ever since Schmitz was first elected, and it will not swallow 
the trolley proposition in its present form, and it is charging your 
administration with corruption. If it persists in its fight it will 
eventually break your back. It seems to me that it would be a 
comparatively easy matter to placate this opposition by exacting 
some compensation for this permit, either in the way of cash or by 
way of a percentage of the proceeds of the road, or you might 
limit it as to time; give them a permit for five or ten years. You 
have them at your mercy and they are bound to accept whatever 
terms you prescribe.' Mr. Ruef then said: 'To hell with the Ex- 
aminer, no public man can afford to swallow that paper. This 
thing will go through on Monday. It is all settled.' And then I 
said: 'You don't need me then,' and Mr. Calhoun said: 'I don't 
think we do, Mr. Sanderson.' That is all the conversation, or that 
is substantially all the conversation that took place in regard to 
that matter." 



San Francisco After the Fire 61 

would be granted. 62 And it was granted. On May 21, 
the Supervisors passed the ordinance which gave the 
United Railroads authority to convert its cable systems, 
wherever grades would permit, into trolley lines. For 
this privilege, no money compensation, nor promise of 
compensation, was made the city. 63 

Demand that Mayor Schmitz veto the ordinance 
granting these extraordinary privileges followed. Nev- 
ertheless, the Mayor affixed his signature to the trolley 
permit-granting ordinance. 

Fair expression of the feeling this action engendered 
will be found in the San Francisco papers of the latter 
part of May, 1906. "Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz," said 
the Examiner, for example, "has betrayed the trust 
reposed in him by the people, violated his solemn pledge 
in favor of an underground conduit system, and joined 
Abe Ruef and the United Railroads in the shameless 
work of looting the city at the time of her greatest 
need." 

The Ruef-Schmitz administration protested at the 

62 Said the Examiner in its issue of May 16, 1906: "It looks 
very much as if Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally and their pals 
of the United Railroads had sneaked up behind San Francisco just 
as she lay woimded fi*om earthquake and conflagration. In the 
guise of helping her, they were caught picking her pocket. If the 
Supervisors aid and abet them, the people will be warranted in 
setting up their effigies in lasting bronze, a group of everlasting 
infamy, with the inscription: 'THESE MEN LOOTED SAN FRAN- 
CISCO AT THE TIME OF THE GREAT FIRE OF 1906.' " 

63 Of the failure to exact pay for the franchise, the Examiner 
of May 17, 1906, said: 

"Mayor Schmitz and the Board of Supervisors must know, and 
if they do not know they are now informed, that the franchises 
they propose to give away to the United Railroads are worth a 
great deal of money to the city of San Francisco, and they cer- 
tainly do know that the city never was so greatly in need of money 
as now. To give away so much of value at such a time is so 
hideous a crime that it will leave a scar upon the reputation of 
everybody concerned in it, no matter what that reputation has been 
up to the time of the infamy." 



62 San Francisco After the Fire 

criticism. The eighteen Supervisors, seventeen of whom 
were within a year to confess that they had accepted 
bribes and all of whom were to be involved in the 
scandal, joined in a letter 64 to the Examiner, announc- 
ing that such criticism was unwarranted, and injured 
the city. The letter contained veiled threat that ques- 
tioning of the Supervisors' motives would not be tol- 
erated. The threat, however, intimidated nobody. Crit- 
icism of Ruef and the administration continued. 

But in spite of the hostility toward him, Ruef con- 
trolled the San Francisco delegates who were named 
that year to attend the Republican State convention. 
The convention met at Santa Cruz. Ruef held the bal- 
ance of power. He was the most sought man there. 



64 The Supervisors' letter to the Examiner was as follows: 

"San Francisco, Cal., May 26, 1906. 

"To 'The San Francisco Examiner,' City — Gentlemen: The 
Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, re- 
gretting the hostile stand which your journal has in these dis- 
tressing times assumed toward the rebuilding of our destroyed city, 
by indiscriminately attacking every vested interest and all intend- 
ing investments of capital in this city, respectfully submits for your 
consideration the propriety of joining with instead of assailing 
those who are in good faith and with their energy and ability striv- 
ing to restore and rebuild our beloved city. 

"Irrespective of any personal feeling caused by your wanton 
attacks on his Honor the Mayor, and on this Board, we ask of you, 
as citizens of San Francisco and as the legislative branch of our 
government, to cease your thoughtless and dangerous efforts to 
drive away from our city every interest which has expressed its in- 
tention to assist in our rebuilding and which has manifested a 
practical confidence in our future. Otherwise, the day will cer- 
tainly not be far distant when the people, realizing the result of 
your course, will seek to protect the city against its further con- 
tinuance. 

"In all good faith for the city's interests and without any per- 
sonal rancor, these suggestions are submitted to your careful at- 
tention. 

"Respectfully, James L. Gallagher, Max Mamlock, Chas. Boxton, 
L. A. Rea, F. P. Nicholas, Andrew M. Wilson, Geo. F. Duffey, J. J. 
Furey. M. W. Coffey, Daniel G. Coleman, C J. Harrigan, J. J. Phil- 
lips, P. M. McGushin, E. I. Walsh, Sam Davis, Jas. T. Kelly, 
Thomas F. Lonergan, W. W. Sanderson." 



San Francisco After the Fire 63 

He had the nomination for Governor in his hands. 
He gave it to James N. Gillett. 65 

While the convention was in session, a dinner was 
given the State leaders of the Republican party at the 
home of Major Frank McLaughlin, then Chairman of 
the Republican State Central Committee. Ruef was one 
of the select few present. A flash-light picture of that 
banquet board shows him seated in the place of honor 
at the center of the table, the remaining guests with the 
exception of the host, McLaughlin, who is seated at 
Ruef's side, standing. 

At Ruef's back stands James N. Gillett, who had 
just received, with Ruef's assistance, the party nomina- 
tion for Governor, his hand resting upon Ruef's shoul- 
der. Others in this flash-light group are George Hatton, 
political manipulator, whose connection with the 1905 
mayoralty campaign in San Francisco has already been 
noted; J. W. McKinley, head of the Southern Pacific 
Law Department at Los Angeles, who was chairman of 
the convention; Rudolph Herold, a politician prominent 
in the counsels of the old "Southern Pacific machine" ; 
Justice F. W. Henshaw of the California Supreme 
Bench, who was nominated at the convention for re- 
election; 66 Walter F. Parker, political agent for the 

65 Ruef, in his story of his political career, "The Road I Trav- 
eled," states that in an interview with William F. Herrin, chief 
of the Southern Pacific law department, previous to the primary 
campaign, the necessarj^ expenses of the primary campaign and 
of the primary election were discussed. Herrin, according to 
Ruef's account, agreed not to oppose the Ruef tickets. "As agreed 
prior to the primary," Ruef goes on to say in his narrative: "Her- 
rin paid me $14,000 for the purpose of securing for his organization 
the certainty of the votes of the San Francisco delegation." See 
San Francisco Bulletin, August 31, 1912. 

66 Henshaw was re-elected. After Ruef had been convicted and 
the Appellate Court had refused to grant him a new trial, Hen- 
shaw, before the briefs had been filed in the matter of the appeal 



64 San Francisco After the Fire 

Southern Pacific Company; Warren R. Porter, who had 
just received the nomination for Lieutenant-Governor; 
Congressman J. R. Knowland, prominent in the counsels 
of the "machine" that at the time dominated the State, 
and Judge F. H. Kerrigan of the Appellate Bench, 
whose decision in favor of the Southern Pacific Com- 
pany while on the Superior Bench, in the so-called San 
Joaquin Valley railroad rate case, made him a con- 
spicuous figure in California public life. 67 

The group represented the most effective forces at 
the time in California politics. Ruef, at the Santa Cruz 
convention, reached the height of his power. He left 
Santa Cruz planning a State organization that would 
make him as great a factor in State politics as he was 
at the metropolis. 

But on his return to San Francisco, Ruef found him- 
self harassed by criticism and beset by opposition. At 
every point in the municipal administration, with the 
exception of the District Attorney's office, was sugges- 
tion of graft and incompetency. The police department 
could not, or would not, control the criminal element. 
Merchants, in the middle of the day, were struck down 
at their places of business and robbed. Several were 
fatally injured in such attacks, being found dying and 
even dead behind their counters. Street robberies were 
of daily occurrence. 

In the acres of ash-strewn ruins, was junk worth 
hundreds of thousands of dollars. The police seemed 



from the Appellate to the Supreme Court, signed an order granting 
Ruef a new hearing. See Chapter XXIX. 

«7 See decisions in Edson vs. The Southern Pacific Co., 133 
Cal. Reports and 144 Cal. Reports. 



San Francisco After the Fire 65 

utterly powerless to protect this property. It became 
the loot of unchecked bands of thieves. 

A reign of terror prevailed. Citizens feared to ap- 
pear on the streets at night. Merchants charged that their 
business was seriously injured by these conditions. On 
all sides, blame was placed upon the Schmitz adminis- 
tration which Ruef was known to control. 68 

Then again, Ruef s toll from the tolerated gambling, 
saloon and social evil interests was getting too heavy 
for his own safety. 69 The public was given hint of this 
when the newspapers quoted George Renner, a promi- 
nent businessman, as asserting that a liquor license could 
be secured if the applicant "put the matter into Ruef's 
hands and paid a fat little fee." Ruef, in his reply, 
stated that the liquor people were nuisances anyhow. 
Ruef had long acted as attorney for the California 
Liquor Dealers' Association. The Association, after 

68 Nor was this criticism confined to San Francisco; it was gen- 
eral throughout the State. The Sacramento Bee, in describing the 
conditions prevailing at San Francisco, said: 

"In the hold-ups which are now terrorizing the people of San 
Francisco the citizens are seeing the effects of a loose or dishonest 
municipal administration. The form of lawlessness now prevailing 
in San Francisco follows upon bad local government as inevitably 
as night follows day." 

69 Definite figures, alleged to be the graft schedule enforced 
in the San Francisco tenderloin after the fire, were published. The 
Chronicle of April 24, 1907. said on this score: 

"After the great disaster of last April, or so soon as the new 
tenderloin began to build up and the Barbary Coast district began 
to establish itself, a schedule of prices for protected vice was for- 
mulated. This schedule has been rigidly adhered to. In the case 
of houses of ill-fame, the proprietors were required to pay the po- 
licemen on the beat the sum of $5, the sergeants $15, the captains 
$25, and the chief of police $75 to $100 every week for the privilege 
of conducting their nefarious business. The gambling houses were 
assessed according to their ability to pay, but the average price 
for police protection, according to Heney, was about the same as 
the houses" of prostitution. The dives along Pacific street and in 
the Barbarj' Coast district were required to pay $50 every week to 
the police captain and the chief, those two functionaries presumably 
dividing the money. The sporting saloons where women of the 
night life congregate were taxed a similar amount." 



66 San Francisco After the Fire 

Ruef's flippant characterization of the liquor people, 
boldly dispensed with his services and employed another 
attorney, Herbert Choynski, in his stead. Choynski 
made no effort to placate Ruef. On the contrary, he 
gave out interviews to the press charging that Ruef 
had received $500,000 for the trolley permit, and that 
each Supervisor had been given $4000 or $5000 for his 
vote. 

This story was given some credit, although few real- 
ized the amount of truth it contained. 

The Supervisors were spending money freely. Men, 
who in private life had earned less than $100 a month, 
and as Supervisors were receiving only that amount, 
gave evidence of being generously supplied with funds. 
Supervisor Coffey, a hack driver, took a trip to Chicago. 
Lonergan, driver of a delivery wagon, announced plans 
for a tour of Ireland with his wife and children. Wil- 
son planned a trip through the Eastern States. The 
official head of the administration, Mayor Schmitz, left 
on a trip to Europe, leaving Supervisor Gallagher as 
acting Mayor. 70 Reports printed in San Francisco pa- 
pers of Schmitz, the orchestra player, as guest of the 
most expensive European hotels, did not tend to lessen 
the opposition to the administration. 

70 Ruef advised strongly against Schmitz leaving San Francisco. 
In an interview printed in the San Francisco Call, May 16, 1907, 
the day after he had plead guilty to a charge of extorting money 
from French restaurant dives, Ruef said: 

"The great mistake of this whole thing began with the Mayor's 
trip to Europe. The Mayor had been proclaimed as the man of 
the hour after the disaster of last April. He was suddenly seized 
with the desire of making a trip to Europe, where he expected to 
be received as one of the crowned heads. He thought his fame 
would spread throughout the world and he hoped to be lionized 
abroad and, incidentally, gain social prestige. The whole thing 
was a mistake. I begged him not to go. I pointed out to him 
that the city was in ruins and the place for the Mayor was at 
hoi • He persisted, and all my pleadings were in vain." 



San Francisco After the Fire 67 

The general dissatisfaction with the administration 
finally found expression in a mass meeting intended to 
inaugurate a movement to rid the community of Ruef's 
influence. 71 The meeting was called in the name of 
various promotion associations and improvement clubs. 
It was to have been held in the rooms of the California 
Promotion Association, a temporary shack that had 
been erected in Union Square, a public park in the 
business district. But the crowd which gathered was so 
great that the meeting had to be held in the park itself. 

When the committee in charge met to complete final 
preparations, preliminary to calling the meeting to order, 
Ruef and Acting Mayor Gallagher, with astonishing 
assurance, appeared before the committee and offered 
their co-operation in the work in hand. Their presence 
does not appear to have been welcome. Nevertheless, 
before the resolutions which the committee had under 
consideration were read before the crowd, all harsh 
references to Ruef and the municipal administration had 
been expurgated. In effect, the expurgated resolutions 
called upon commercial organizations, clubs, labor unions 
and similar bodies to form a committee of 100 for 
public safety. 

In the meeting which followed the expurgation of 
the resolutions, the organizers of the movement lost 
control. Their counsel was for moderation in a situa- 
tion where all elements were at work. 



71 At a preliminary meeting- of the organizers of this movement, 
held in the office of the California Canners, October 10, 1906, re- 
sponsibility for the state of affairs in San Francisco was charged 
to Ruef. It was stated at this meeting, and given out to the press, 
that convincing evidence had been secured against Ruef which 
warranted his prosecution. 



68 San Francisco After the Fire 

The crowd was made up of Ruef claquers who 
shouted everybody down ; members of Labor Unions 
who had been led to believe that the purpose of the 
gathering was to break down the unions; and of radi- 
cals who were for proceeding immediately to clean up 
the town. Those responsible for the gathering appeared 
appalled at its magnitude, and showed themselves unable 
to cope with the situation. 

William A. Doble presided. Samuel M. Shortridge, 
an attorney who was to play a prominent part in the 
graft trials, stood at Doble's side and acted as a sort of 
director of the proceedings. The expurgated resolutions 
were read by the President of the Merchants' Associa- 
tion, E. R. Lillienthal. The ayes were called for and 
the resolutions declared to have been adopted. The 
next moment announcement was made that the meeting 
stood adjourned. 

An angry demonstration followed. The people had 
met to discuss lawlessness. They refused to be put off. 
The adjourned meeting refused to adjourn. There were 
cries of Drive Ruef out of Town. One speaker, 
A. B. Truman, denounced Ruef as a grafter. For the 
moment an outbreak seemed imminent. At this crisis, 
Acting Mayor Gallagher appeared. 

"I would suggest," he announced, 72 "that you dis- 
perse to your respective homes." 

72 Acting Mayor Gallagher was emphatic in declaring that no 
vigilance committee should disgrace San Francisco. The interior 
press, which was following the San Francisco situation closely and 
from an independent standpoint, advised Mayor Gallagher that the 
best way to prevent organization of such a committee would be to 
enforce the laws. Said the Stockton Record: 

"If Acting Mayor Gallagher and his associates wish to abate 
the agitation in favor of a committee of safety for San Francisco, 
they should do less talking and take more energetic action against 



San Francisco After the Fire 69 

Citizens who did not care to participate in what 
threatened to become a riot began leaving the park. 
But Rnef's henchmen did not leave. 

Ruef, who had cowered in fright when the crowd 
was denouncing him, was concealed in a room in the so- 
called Little St. Francis Hotel, which after the fire had 
been erected in Union Square Park. From his hiding 
place he could see the crowd without being seen. At 
the right time, he appeared on the steps of the building 
which were used for the speaker's stand. His followers, 
now in a majority, cheered him wildly. The next 
moment, Ruef was in control of the meeting which had 
been called to protest against the conditions in San 
Francisco, for which the administration, of which he 
was the recognized head, was held to be accountable. 73 

the thug element. The police department of the afflicted city is 
now virtually on trial. It is even under suspicion of offenses graver 
than that of inefficiency. One or two more crimes of violence with 
well-known people as victims will fire the public indignation of 
San Francisco to a point where incapable officers will be forced 
aside and an authority created to meet the grave emergency con- 
fronting respectable citizenry." 

The Stockton Independent went even further. Said that paper 
of the San Francisco situation: 

"Acting Mayor Gallagher of San Francisco declares there shall 
be no vigilance committee and no lynching in San Francisco. If 
he and the police are unable to prevent daily murders, or attempted 
murders, by single criminals, how can he prevent good citizens in 
hundreds of thousands from lynching those criminals if they catch 
them? Perhaps some of the purblind members of the police force 
may be among the first to be lynched." 

T3 After Ruef's capture of the Union Square meeting, Rev. P. 
C. Macfarlane, pastor of the First Christian Church at Alameda, 
said in a sermon (October 21, 1906) of the San Francisco situation: 

"Let a few resolute, clean-handed business men of San Fran- 
cisco who are not cowards, who are not quitters or grafters, get 
together and make a purse of twenty, fifty or a hundred thousand 
dollars, then employ the ablest attorney to be had and set quietly 
to work to find the graft and punish the grafters. They could 
make chapel exercises on Sunday afternoon in San Quentin look 
like a political rally in San Francisco inside of two years. 

"Thus Eugene E. Schmitz stands before the world as a man who 
tried to reform and could not. He is a moral inebriate. He is a 
welcher. He is a wanderer on the face of the globe, a man with- 
out country, expatriated by his own cowardice. This is Dr. Jekyll. 

"But there are some who see in Schmitz Mr. Hyde. These do 



yo San Francisco After the Fire 

The first serious attempt to oust Ruef from his dictator- 
ship had failed. 

But while the protestants against prevailing condi- 
tions were hot with the disappointments of this failure, 
District Attorney Langdon issued a statement that he 
had determined to seize the opportunity presented by 
the impanelment of a new Grand Jury to inaugurate a 
systematic and thorough investigation into charges of 
official graft and malfeasance in office. To assist in 
this work, he announced, Francis J. Heney had been 
requested to become a regular deputy in the District 
Attorney's office, and had accepted. That the investi- 
gation might not be handicapped by lack of funds, Mr. 
Langdon stated Rudolph Spreckels had guaranteed that 
he would personally undertake the collection from pub- 
lic-spirited citizens of a fund to provide for the expenses 
necessary to make the investigation thorough. 74 It be- 
not give the Mayor credit for even a spasm of virtue and say that 
the great work of the morning of April 18 was done by General 
Punston and prominent citizens of their own volition. These peo- 
ple say that he has now gone from San Francisco, taking with him 
vast sums of money gained through the granting of the trolley 
franchise, plotted even while the embers smoldered, and that he 
will never return. 

"The United Railroads is universally believed to have acquired 
its trolley franchises by corrupt means. It is said that prominent 
merchants will crane and crook and bow and scrape to get a nod 
of recognition from Abe Ruef. Ruef has used the advantages given 
him bythe state of affairs to corrupt the greatest city in Califor- 
nia. Ruef owns the Board of Supervisors. The Police Commission- 
ers belong to him. The saloon-keeper who wants a license, a coiv 
poration that wants a favor from the Board of Supervisors, has 
only to retain Ruef as an attorney at a fee sufficiently large." 

Dr. Macfarlane gave expression to what many thoughtful men 
were thinking, but of which few with interests at San Francisco 
dared to admit openly. 

74 Mr. Langdon's statement was published October 21, 1900. It 
was in full as follows: 

"In view of the present extraordinary conditions prevalent in the 
City and County of San Francisco, the unusual increase in crime, 
which threatens to grow Avorse as the winter sets in, and in view 
of the numerous charges of official graft and malfeasance in office, 
I have determined to seize the opportunity presented, by the im- 
panelment of a new grand jury, which has been set down for next 



San Francisco After the Fire 71 

came known that William J. Burns, who had been 
associated with Heney in the Oregon land-fraud cases, 
had been retained to direct the investigation, and that 
for several months his agents had been quietly at work. 
The effect of these announcements was immediate. 



Wednesday by Hon. Thomas F. Graham, the Presiding- Judge of the 
Superior Court in the City and County of San Francisco, to inau- 
gurate a systematic and 'thorough investigation into these condi- 
tions. It is my official duty to do so, and in pursuance of that duty 
and in view of the magnitude of the task, I have decided to seek 
the best assistance obtainable. It is my purpose to set at x-est 
these charges of official graft by either proving them false or con- 
victing those who are guilty. If the charges be untrue, their falsity 
should be demonstrated to the world, so as to remove the impres- 
sions which have been circulated to the injury of the credit and 
fair name of the city. If they be true we should show to the coun- 
try that there is enough strength, virtue and civic pride in our 
people to enable the regularly constituted machinery of justice to 
re-establish conditions on a clean, righteous and just basis, without 
resort to any extraordinary expedients outside the law. This is to 
be an honest, fair, thorough and searching investigation. We shall 
protect no man. We shall persecute no man, but we shall prose- 
cute every man who is guilty, regardless of position or standing in 
the city. In order that we may have the benefit of expert services 
in this work I have requested Mr. Francis J. Heney, who has won 
national fame for his work in the prosecution of the Oregon land 
fraud cases, to become a regular deputy in my office. Mr. Heney 
has accepted. It is unfortunate that this work should be com- 
menced during a political campaign, but the conditions in San 
Francisco to-day require that radical action be taken at once, and 
though I may be charged with instituting this investigation at this 
particular juncture for political advantage, I must ask the public 
to judge me by the results attained, which will be the best answer. 
"I am not unmindful of the great difficulties involved in this 
investigation. It will be both laborious and costly. The money 
available under the appropriations made to the District Attorney's 
office and the grand jury is, of course, utterly inadequate. Often 
previous investigations by other grand juries have been made abor- 
tive because of this lack of necessary funds to meet expenses. In 
the present instance we shall not suffer this severe handicap. I am 
authorized to announce that Mr. Rudolph Spreckels has guaranteed 
that he will personally undertake the collection from public-spirited 
citizens of a fund to provide for the expenses necessary to make 
the investigation thorough and so that good results may ensue. 
The city is in deep affliction consequent upon the dreadful calami- 
ties of last spring; it is in danger from certainly increasing inva- 
sion of desperate criminals from all over the world; some of the 
public departments are undoubtedly in bad hands, and I appeal to 
my fellow-citizens to give this investigation their moral support, 
so that the innocent may be protected, so that the guilty may be 
punished, and so that San Francisco may be helped to her feet and 
started again on the high road of prosperity in her material condi- 
tions, and have restored decency, efficiency, honesty and honor in 
her public affairs. 

"WILLIAM TT. LAXGDON. District Attorney." 



72 San Francisco After the Fire 

All talk of "vigilante committee" and "lynching" ceased. 
The case of The People of San Francisco vs. the 
Schmitz-Ruef Administration was to be presented in 
an orderly way in the courts. 

And the united press of San Francisco, legitimate 
business interests, and a great majority of the people 
welcomed the alternative. 



CHAPTER V. 
Graft Prosecution Opens. 

Three days after the announcement of his plans, 
District Attorney Langdon appointed Heney to a regu- 
lar deputyship. But even before Langdon had taken 
office, as early as December, 1905, Fremont Older, 
editor of the San Francisco Bulletin, had suggested to 
Heney that he undertake the prosecution of those re- 
sponsible for conditions in San Francisco. 

The Bulletin had been the most fearless and con- 
sistent of the opponents of the Schmitz-Ruef regime. 75 
After Ruef's complete triumph at the November elec- 
tion in 1905, he boasted that he Avould break the Bulletin 
with libel suits. With every department of government 
in his control, Ruef appeared to be in a position where, 
even though he might not be able to make good his 
threat, he could cause the Bulletin much annoyance if 
not great financial loss. 

Older went on to Washington to engage Heney to 

75 The persecution of the Bulletin during this period was char- 
acteristic of Ruef's methods and reflected the state of lawlessness 
which prevailed in San Francisco. R. A. Crothers, proprietor of 
the paper, was assaulted and badly beaten. The newsboys organ- 
ized into a union. The boys were sincere enough, but the move- 
ment was in reality engineered from the tenderloin. Soon a strike 
of newsboys against the Bulletin was inaugurated. Copies of the 
paper were snatched from the hands of citizens who purchased it. 
Bulletin carriers and agents were assaulted. Tugs of its delivery 
wagons were cut. When the paper was delivered to stores, sticks 
and stones were thrown in after it. The police did not interfere. 
The manifestations of lawlessness went unchecked. Libel suits 
were brought against the Bulletin. Business boycotts were at- 
tempted against it. 



74 Graft Prosecution Opens 

defend the paper, should Ruef attempt to make his 
boast good. Heney gave Ruef's threats little credence. 
"I would be very glad to defend you," he told Older, 
"but I am afraid I'll never get a chance to earn that 
fee." 76 

Incidentally Older stated that he believed a fund 
could be raised to prosecute the corrupters of the San 
Francisco municipal government, and asked Heney if 
he would undertake the prosecution, if such a fund 
could be secured. 

Heney replied that he would be glad to undertake 
it, but stated that at least $100,000 would be required. 
And even with this amount, Heney pointed out to Older, 
all efforts would be futile, unless the District Attorney 
were genuinely in sympathy with the movement to 
better conditions. 

On Heney's return to California early in 1906, 
Older brought him and Rudolph Spreckels 77 and James 

"6 See address made by Heney before Citizens' League of Jus- 
tice in October, 1908. 

77 Rudolph Spreckels, although connected with large enterprises, 
had steadfastly refused to employ Ruef as an attorney, or to join 
with him in any way. Given control of the San Francisco Gas 
Company, for example, although he was importuned to do so, 
Spreckels refused to employ Ruef as attorney for that company. 
Spreckels testified at the trial of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, 
that he had first realized the necessity of proceeding against Ruef 
and the Ruef-Schmitz administration when Ruef proposed to him 
to organize a syndicate to purchase San Francisco municipal bonds. 
Spreckels testified that Ruef set forth his plan as follows: 

"He (Ruef) asked me if I would get together a syndicate for the 
purpose of bidding on these bonds; that he would guarantee that if 
I did get up sueh a syndicate, our bid would be a successful bid; 
that we would not be obliged to bid above par, and that he would 
guarantee that we would be the successful bidders. My reply to 
Mr. Ruef was that I could not undei-stand how anybody could make 
such an agreement or promise, and how did he propose to make 
such a statement — to carry out what he had stated. He said: 
'Why, that is a simple matter. You know my connection with the 
T,abor Tnlons and the Labor Union party. Just at the time that the 
bide are about to come in. T will arrange to tie up this town; we 
will have the biggest strike that the community has ever known. 



Graft Prosecution Opens 75 

D. Phelan together. Heney and Spreckels met for the 
first time. Phelan vouched for Langdon's 78 integrity 
and honesty of purpose. Indeed, Langdon was already 
giving evidence of his independence of the Ruef organ- 
ization. Up to that time no attempt had been made to 
raise the funds necessary to conduct a practical investi- 
gation. Phelan stated that he would subscribe $10,000 
and Spreckels agreed to give a like amount. Spreckels 
undertook to look the field over and expressed confi- 
dence that he could get twenty men who would sub- 
scribe $5000 each, making the $100,000 which Heney 
had declared to be necessary for the undertaking. The 
question of Heney's fee was then raised. 79 

and I would like to see any of your bankers or your capitalistic 
friends bid on the bonds under those circumstances, excepting 
yourself, those that are in the know' — words to that effect, was 
his expression. I said to Mr. Ruef: 'Do you mean to say, Mr. 
Ruef, that for the purpose of making money you would bring about 
a strike which might entail even bloodshed, for the mere sake of 
making money?' And Mr. Ruef flushed up and said: 'Oh, no; I 
was only joking.' And he soon withdrew from my office." 

It is interesting to compare Spreckels' attitude toward Ruef 
with that of I. W. Hellman, as shown by Hellman's testimony at 
the trial of Tirey L. Ford. See footnote 7, page 15. 

78 Heney. in his address on the work of the Graft Prosecution, 
October, 1908, paid Langdon the following high tribute: 

"Mr. Langdon, as soon as we laid the matter before him and 
convinced him it was in good faith and not to serve private inter- 
ests, said: 'Yes, I will appoint Mr. Heney assistant in my office 
and give him full sway to make a thorough investigation, on one 
condition, and that is that I am kept personally in touch with 
everything going on at all times. I am District Attorney and I 
propose to be District Attorney and to act upon my own judgment.' 
And there never has been a time that Mr. Langdon didn't have ab- 
solute sway over all mattei'S, and did not wholly consent to what 
was done, and he has had the final say in everything, and I wish 
to say that there is more credit due to him than to any of us. He 
had a greater personal sacrifice to make. 

"The first thing he had to take into consideration was that he 
had gone into office as the candidate of the Labor party, and he 
knew he would be called a traitor and denounced if it appeared 
that any man who had been on the same ticket as he had been 
elected upon had been grafting. He had to possess more moral 
than physical courage, and a higher kind of moral courage, and 
that courage was exercised to the credit of San Francisco as well 
as to the credit of Mr. Langdon." 

79 The Graft Defense labored without success to make it appear 



76 Graft Prosecution Opens 

"If there be anything left out of the $100,000 we 
will talk about fee," Heney replied. "But I don't think 
there will be anything left and I will put up my time 
against your money." 

It was practically settled at this meeting that Heney 
should devote himself to the prosecution of corrup- 
tionists against whom evidence might be secured. He 
returned to Washington early in March to wind up his 
affairs there. Before he could return to San Francisco, 
came the earthquake and fire. 

Heney got back to San Francisco April 25, one week 
after the disaster. He had another conference with 
Spreckels. 80 Spreckels told him that he wanted the 
investigation begun at the earliest possible moment, and 
that he (Spreckels) would himself guarantee the ex- 
penses which might be incurred. 81 Heney notified 

that Heney was compensated for his service. Out of the Prosecu- 
tion fund, the expenses — rental, clerical hire, etc. — of offices, so far 
as they were maintained especially for the work of the Graft Pros- 
ecution, were paid. These were known as "Heney's offices." When 
Rudolph Spreckels was on the stand at the Calhoun trial, he testi- 
fied under Heney's announcement that the Defense could ask him 
any question it chose and no objection would be made. Earl 
Rogers, for Calhoun, endeavored to make it appear that Heney was 
getting pay. 

"Mr. Spreckels," Rogers asked, "in addition to paying Mr. 
Heney's office expenses, amounting to five or six hundred dollars 
a month, have you paid other expenses for Mr. Heney?" 

"No, sir," Spreckels replied. 

Heney, the testimony all through shows, received not a dollar 
to compensate him for his services to the city; moreover, it shows 
that he had given up business which would have brought him large 
fees, that he might be free to conduct the Graft Prosecution. See 
transcript Calhoun trial, pages 3837 and on, 3746, 3743, etc. 

The efforts of well-compensated attorneys for the Defense to 
make it appear that Heney was paid for his work, furnish one of 
the amusing features of the graft trials. 

so The conference was held on May 10 or 11. This was four 
days before the Supervisors took the preliminary steps toward 
granting the United Railroads its overhead trolley permit, and sev- 
eral months before the bribe money was paid. 

si Se.- testimony of Rudolph Spreckels at trial of The People 
vi Patrick Calhoun. N'«>. I486. 



Graft Prosecution Opens 77 

Burns, and as early as June 82 Burns had begun the 
investigation that was to result in the downfall of Ruef, 
and the scattering of his forces. 

By the middle of the following October, Heney had 
so arranged his affairs as to be free to devote himself 
to the San Francisco investigation. His appointment as 
Deputy District Attorney followed. 

In view of one of the principal defenses advanced 
by Ruef and his allies, namely, that the graft prosecu- 
tion was undertaken to injure the United Railroads, 
these dates are important. The services for which the 
bribe money which got the United Railroads into diffi- 
culties was paid, were not rendered until May 21, 1906, 
long after final arrangements had been made for Burns 
to conduct the investigation and Heney to assist in the 
prosecution. The actual passing of the United Rail- 
roads bribe money was not completed until late in 
August 83 of that year. Burns was at work, and had 



82 Al McKinley was the first detective put to work for the Graft 
Prosecution. On May 25, 1906, Chief Burns detailed him to watch 
Ruef. Later, June 19, 1906, Burns directed Robert Perry to shadow 
Ruef. Perry did so until nearly a year later, when Ruef was placed 
in the custody of an elisor. 

83 That prosecution of officials of the United Railroads was not 
thought of when the graft prosecution was begun, was brought out 
at the trial of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436. The fol- 
lowing, for example, is taken from Rudolph Spreckels' testimony: 

"Mr. Heney — Q. At the time that Mr. Phelan agreed to con- 
tribute the $10,000, Mr. Spreckels, what did you say, if anything, 
about contributing yourself? A. That was in the first meeting, I 
think. Mr. Heney, and I told him that I was ready and willing to 
contribute a similar amount; that I believed it would be possible to 
get others to join and contribute. 

"Q. At that time was anything said by any person about prose- 
cuting Mr. Calhoun? A. Absolutely no. 

"Q. Or any person connected with the United Railroads Com- 
pany? A. The discussion was entirely confined to the administra- 
tion, the corrupt administration as we termed it. 

"Q. At that time did you have any purpose or intention of 
prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. I had not. 

"Q. Did you have any reason to believe that Mr. Calhoun at 



78 Graft Prosecution Opens 

received pay for his services before the bribe-giving 
for which United Railroad officials were prosecuted had 
taken place. 84 

Langdon's announcement that he would appoint 
Heney as a Deputy District Attorney, to assist in in- 
vestigating into charges of official corruption, brought 
upon him the condemnation of the municipal administra- 
tion and of the leaders of the Union-Labor party. P. H. 
McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, who, from opposing the 
Union-Labor party movement in 1901-3 had, by the 
time the Graft Prosecution opened, become prominent 
in its councils, were particularly bitter in their denun- 
ciations. At a Ruef-planned mass meeting held at the 
largest auditorium in the city October 31, 1906, for the 
purpose of organizing a league for the protection of the 
administration, Langdon was dubbed "traitor to his 
party," a man "who has gone back on his friends," 
"the Benedict Arnold of San Francisco." 



that time had committed any crime? A. I had no indication of 
such a crime. 

"Mr. Moore — Was that time fixed, Mr. Heney? 

"Mr. Heney — Yes, it was fixed; the first conversation, and he 
has fixed it as nearly as he could. 

"The Court — Have you in mind the testimony on that point, Mr. 
Moore? There was some reference to it in an earlier part of the 
examination. 

"Mr. Heney — Q. When you had the talk with Mr. Heney in 
April, 1906, did you say anything about prosecuting Mr. Calhoun, 
or anybody connected with the United Railroads? A. I did not. 

"Q. Did you at any time tell Mr. Heney that you desired to 
have him prosecute Mr. Patrick Calhoun? A. I did not, at any 
time. 

"Q. Did you tell him at any time that you desired to have him 
prosecute any person connected with the United Railroads Com- 
pany? A. I did not." See transcript The People vs. Patrick Cal- 
houn, No. 1436, page 3730. 

8-i Rudolph Spreckels testified at the trial of The People vs. Pat- 
rick Calhoun, No. 1436: 

"Mr. Perry was employed to get information in regard to Mr. 
Abraham Ruef and the city administration as early as June, 1906, 
and his efforts and of one other man employed at that time were 
directed toward that and that only." 



Graft Prosecution Opens 79 

Heney was denounced as "the man from Arizona." 
On the other hand Mayor Schmitz was called "the 
peerless champion of the people's rights," and Ruef, 
"the Mayor's loyal, able and intrepid friend." 

Thomas Egan, one of the organizers of the Union- 
Labor party, stated of the graft prosecution : "This 
movement, led by Rudolph Spreckels and engineered by 
James D. Phelan, conceived in iniquity and born in 
shame, is for the purpose of destroying the labor organ- 
izations and again to gain control of the government 
of our fair city." 

Ruef, in an earnest address, insisted upon his inno- 
cence of wrongdoing. "As sure as there is a God in 
heaven," he announced solemnly, "they have no proof 
as they claim." 85 

Acting Mayor Gallagher issued a statement in which 
he took the same ground as had Egan at the Dreamland 
Rink mass meeting, that the prosecution was a move- 
ment on the part of the Citizens' Alliance to disrupt the 
labor unions. 86 

85 See San Francisco newspapers, November 1, 1906. 

86 Gallagher's statement was in full as follows: 

"It seems to me that these assaults that are being made upon 
Mayor Schmitz are exceedingly reprehensible. It is strange that 
the gentlemen who are making the attacks did not see fit to make 
them while Mayor Schmitz was here. Especially does this apply 
to Langdon, who, by reason of past association with Mayor Schmitz. 
and favors received by him from the Mayor, should have been the 
last man to attempt to besmirch the Mayor in his absence. I am 
satisfied that all these attacks upon the administration officials 
have their origin in the long-continued attempt on behalf of the 
Citizens' Alliance to disrupt the labor organizations of the city. 
An administration that is friendly to organized labor is an impass- 
able obstacle in the way of such a purpose. The enormous amount 
of labor of all kinds that will have to be performed in this city 
during the next few years has undoubtedly prompted the organizers 
of the old Citizens' Alliance to renew their assaults upon the offi- 
cials elected by the Union Labor party in the hope that they may 
thereby themselves secure control of the municipal administration 



80 Graft Prosecution Opens 

From another angle, officials of public service cor- 
porations charged those identified with the investigation 
with being in league with the labor unions. In one of 
his statements to the public, Patrick Calhoun, president 
of the United Railroads, set forth that, "I confidently 
expect to defeat alike the machinations of Rudolph 
Spreckels, his private prosecutor, with his corps of hired 
detectives, and Mr. Cornelius, president of the Carmen's 
Union, the leader of anarchy and lawlessness, and to see 
fairly established in this community the principles of 
American liberty, and the triumphs of truth and jus- 
tice." 87 

Then, too, there were points at which the two sup- 
posed extremes, corporation magnates and Labor-Union 
politicians, touched in their opposition to the prosecu- 
tion. At a meeting held on November 2, 1906, less 
than two weeks after Heney's appointment, John E. 
Bennett, representing the Bay Cities Water Company, 
read a paper in which Heney and Langdon were de- 
nounced as the agents of the Spring Valley Water 
Company. The Chronicle, in its issue of November 3, 
charged that the paper read by Mr. Bennett was type 

and thus work out their own will in the matter of the conditions 
under which labor shall perform the task of rebuilding this city. 

"So far as I am concerned personally, I consider that the dis- 
ruption of the labor organization would be a great sacrifice of the 
interests of all of the people. The city must be built up; but the 
Citizens' Alliance and all organizations and individuals in sympathy 
with it may as well understand, first as last, that the work will 
only be done through organized labor, and not by the employment 
of pauper labor in competition with the mechanics and artisans of 
the labor unions. 

"That this view of the situation is well recognized by the labor 
organizations of the city is shown by the action of the Building 
Trades Council last night in approving and indorsing my action in 
removing Mr. Langdon." 

87 Contained in a statement published May 18, 1007. See San 
Francisco papers- nf that date. 



Graft Prosecution Opens 81 

proof of a pamphlet that was to be widely distributed, 
and that the proof sheets had been taken to the meeting 
by George B. Keane, secretary of the Board of Super- 
visors. 88 

On the other hand, practically the entire press of 
the city, 89 the general public and many of the labor 

88 The nature of the attacks upon the supporters of the Prosecu- 
tion is shown by the proceedings in the libel suit brought by the 
San Francisco First National Bank against the Oakland Tribune. 
Rudolph Spreckels was president of the bank; the Tribune was one 
of the stanchest of the opponents of the prosecution. The Tribune 
charged that the Graft Prosecution had for one of its objects the 
unloading of the Spring Valley Water Company's plant upon San 
Francisco, and that the First National Bank was burdened with 
Spring Valley securities. Among other things the article set forth: 

"The recent disclosures of the methods by which it was sought 
to unload Spring Valley's old junk, called a distributing system, 
together with its inadequate supply of inferior water, on the city 
at an outrageous figure by the swinging of the 'big stick' has not 
enhanced the value of the securities of the corporation in the view 
of the national examiners. Even the efforts to cloud the real pur- 
poses of the promoters of the Spring Valley job by calling it a civic 
uprising to stamp out municipal graft is said to have failed to mis- 
lead the Federal experts. The suggestion that the 'big stick' would 
force the city to purchase the plant of the decrepit corporation for 
$28,000,000 after its real estimate was appraised by an expert at 
$5,000,000 and held by the bondholders to be worth, as realty specu- 
lation, $15,000,000, has not enthused the Federal bank examiners in 
relation to ■ the value of Spring Valley bonds as security for a 
national bank." 

The First National Bank did not hold Spring Valley Company 
securities. As the Tribune's charges were calculated to injure the 
bank, action for libel followed. At the hearings, it developed that 
the articles had been furnished the Tribune by the political editor 
of the San Francisco Chronicle, who testified that he was paid fifty 
dollars a week for his Tribune articles. This was more than his 
salary as political editor of the Chronicle. He admitted on the 
stand that he had heard what he stated in his article, "only as a 
matter of gossip." 

89 The San Francisco Call, in an editorial article, printed October 
22, expressed the general sentiment in San Francisco. The Call 
said: 

"San Francisco will welcome the undertaking by Mr. Francis J. 
Heney of the duty to search out and bring to justice the official 
boodlers and their brokers that afflict the body politic. Public 
opinion is unanimous in the belief that Supervisors have been bribed 
and that administrative functions such as those of the Board of 
Works and the Health Board have been peddled in secret market. 
Even the Board of Education is not exempted from suspicion. 

"These convictions, prevailing in the public mind, call for veri- 
fication or refutation. The sudden affluence of certain members of 
the Board of Supervisors, the current and generally credited reports 
that the United Railroads paid upward of $500,000 in bribes to 
.grease the way of its overhead trolley franchise, the appearance of 



82 Graft Prosecution Opens 

unions gave the prosecution unqualified endorsement, 
welcoming it as opportunity, in an orderly way, either 
to establish beyond question, or to disprove, the charges 
against the administration of incompetency and cor- 
ruption. 90 Rudolph Spreckels's statement, that "this is 

public officials in the guise of capitalists making large investments 
in skating rinks and other considerable enterprises — these and other- 
lines of investigation demand the probe. If there has been no dis- 
honesty in office the officials should be the first to insist on a 
thorough inquiry. 

"If it is true, as we believe, that official boodling has been the 
practice, a systematic inquiry will surely uncover the crimes. It is 
impossible to commit such offenses where so many are concerned 
without leaving some trace that can be followed and run to earth. 
The crimes of the gaspipe thugs seemed for the moment hidden in 
impenetrable mystery, but patient search discovers the trail that 
leads to conviction. Criminals are rarely men of high intelligence. 
They betray themselves at one or other turn of their windings. 
We are convinced that some of our Supervisors and not a few of the 
executive officials appointed by Schmitz are in no degree superior 
in point of intelligence and moral sense to the gaspipe robbers. 

"Mr. Heney's record as a remorseless and indefatigable prose- 
cutor of official rascals is known. He will have the assistance in 
his new work of Mr. William J. Burns, who did so much to bring 
to light the Oregon land frauds. Those crimes were surrounded and 
protected by fortifications of political influence that were deemed 
impregnable. When the inquiry was first undertaken nobody be- 
lieved it would ever come to anything. It was a slow business, 
even as the mills of the gods grind slowly, but if fine the grist 
of the criminal courts of Oregon is large and satisfying. 

"The people of San Francisco have been sorely tried. Fire and 
earthquake we cannot help, but the unhappy city has been made 
the prey of a set of conscienceless thieves who have done nothing 
since our great calamity beyond promoting schemes to fill their 
own pockets. Our streets, our sewers, our schools and our public 
buildings have been neglected, but the sale of permits and fran- 
chises, the working of real estate jobs and the market for privileges 
of every variety have been brisk and incessant. Officials have 
grown rich: Some of them are spending money like a drunken 
sailor. It is time for housecleaning and a day of reckoning. Heney 
and Burns will put the question: 'Where did they get it?' " 

90 Bishop Montgomery, of the Roman Catholic Church, in an 
interview in the San Francisco Call, October 20, 1906, said in ref- 
erence to the San Francisco graft prosecution: 

"Mere accusations have been so long and so persistently made 
that the public has a right to know the truth; and, above all, those 
who are innocently so charged have a right to a public and complete 
vindication. Nothing now but a thorough and honest investigation 
can clear the atmosphere and set us right before the world and 
with ourselves. 

"I have such confidence in the courts of California that I believe 
no Innocent man needs to fear that he will suffer from them, and 
no guilty man has any just right to complain. 

"I believe the investigation has been undertaken in good faith 
for the best interests of the city, and that it will be conducted 
thoroughly and honestly." 



Graft -Prosecution Opens 83 

no question of capital and labor, but of dishonesty and 
justice," 91 was generally accepted as true expression of 
the situation. 

Those directly connected with allegations or sug- 
gestion of irregular practices, issued statements dis- 
claiming any knowledge of irregularity or corruption. 
General Tirey L. Ford, chief counsel of the United Rail- 
roads, in a published interview, 92 stated that no political 
boss nor any person connected with the municipal ad- 



91 Mr. Spreckels' statement was contained in an interview 
printed in the San Francisco Call, October 28, 1906. It was as fol- 
lows: 

"This is no question of capital and labor," he said, "but of dis- 
honesty and justice. There is no association of men, capitalists or 
others, behind what we have undertaken, and it cannot be made a 
class question. No one knows that better than Ruef. And it will 
be impossible for him to fool the workingman by these insinuations. 

"I want the workingmen of this city to recall that meeting which 
was recently held in Union Square. I was asked to attend that 
meeting and be its chairman. I refused to preside, to speak or go 
there unless I could be assured that it was not to be a movement 
of the capitalistic class on the one hand against the workingmen on 
the other. And because I did not receive that assurance I did not 
attend. Mr. Heney stayed away for the same reason. 

"Now, who was it that originated that meeting? Sam Short- 
ridge. Who was it who drew the resolutions; who was it who 
prompted the speakers and the chairman? It was Sam Shortridge. 

"Mr. Ruef says that meeting was dominated and arranged by the 
Citizens' Alliance. Very well. Then let Mr. Ruef explain to the 
workingmen why it was that a few daj^s afterward he hired Sam 
Shortridge as his attorney. 

"I believe that it is impossible to fool the laboring men of this 
city now. Absolutely and definitely I want to say to them that there 
is nothing behind this movement but the desire for a clean city. 
It is absolutely regardless of class. Every man who owns a home, 
who has a family, is as much interested in what we have under- 
taken as is the wealthiest citizen." 

92 See San Francisco Examiner, October 28, 1906, from which the 
following is taken: "Of course there was no bribery (said General 
Ford), nor offer to bribe, nor was there anything done except upon 
clean and legitimate lines." 

"Q. General, if any bribe, or offer to bribe, had been made by 
your company to any person connected with the San Francisco 
municipal administration, or to any political boss having control of 
the same, or if any member of the Board of Supervisors, or of the 
municipal government had benefited to the extent of one dollar 
financially by the agreement to grant to the United Railroads the 
privilege desired, you, in your official capacity, would undoubtedly 
be aware of it, would you not? A. I am certain that I would; I 
am, therefore, equally certain that no such thing was ever clone or 
contemplated." 



84 Graft Prosecution Opens 

ministration had benefited financially to the extent of 
one dollar in the trolley permit transaction, and that 
had any one profited thereby, he (Ford) in his official 
capacity would have known of it. Those connected 
with the administration were as vigorous in their de- 
nials. 93 Many of them expressed satisfaction at the 
prospect of an investigation. Supervisor Kelly went 
so far as to suggest that the municipality give $5000 to 

93 The following are excerpts from interviews published in the 
San Francisco Examiner, October 23, 1906: 

Abraham Ruef : "I am satisfied that if Mayor Schmitz had known 
that this investigation was afoot he would have postponed his trip 
abroad and would have remained here to disprove all allegations 
of graft." 

Supervisor Andrew Wilson: "I shall be glad to welcome any in- 
vestigation as to my official acts or as to my official conduct. I 
never took a dishonest dollar in my life." 

Supervisor Patrick McGushin: "The more they investigate, the 
better I shall like it. I do not believe Mr. Heney has any evidence 
of graft. Speaking for myself, he can investigate me or my bank 
account if he likes." 

Acting Mayor James L. Gallagher: "So far as the administra- 
tion is concerned from the statements I have received, everything 
is straight. So far as the Police Department is concerned no one 
can tell. I can not tell." 

Supervisor Jennings Phillips: "This investigation will be a good 
thing. There has been so much talk of graft and so many accusa- 
tions that it all will be settled once and for all. If Mr. Heney has 
any evidence I know nothing of its nature nor against what part of 
the administration it is directed." 

Supervisor Edward Walsh: "As a Supervisor I have tried to do 
my best. I court an investigation. I do not pay much attention to 
Mr. Heney's statements. I have been here thirty-seven years and 
I can hold up my head, as can every other member of this Board." 

Supervisor Michael Coffey: "Nothing would afford me more 
pleasure than to have them investigate my integrity and my official 
acts. I hope they'll make a full and thorough investigation and clear 
us all of the slurs that have been cast upon us." 

Supervisor S. Davis: "I think there is nothing to this whole 
thing. If Mr. Heney can find out anything let him do it. It is hard 
to have insinuations cast at you. My personal connection with the 
administration has been straight." 

Supervisor F. P. Nicholas: "There has been so much noise about 
graft that it will be a good thing to go thoroughly into the matter. 
Personally I court an investigation of my official acts. If Mr. Heney 
has any evidence of corruption I know nothing of it." 

Supervisor Daniel Coleman: "These loud cries of graft that have 
been current of late will be silenced through this investigation. It 
should be thoroughly gone into so that the purity of the adminis- 
tration cannot hereafter be questioned." 

Supervisor Max Mamlock: "I do not think it is worth my while 
to think about this investigation. I do not see where Mr. Burns or 
Mr. Heney could get any evidence of graft." 



Graft Prosecution Opens 85 

assist in the inquiry. "Let us," said Supervisor Loner- 
gan, "get to the bottom of this thing. These cracks 
about graft have been made right along, and we should 
have them proved or disproved at once." 

But in spite of this brave front, the developments 
of the years of resistance of the graft prosecution 
show the few days following Heney's appointment as 
Assistant District Attorney to have been a period of 
intense anxiety to Ruef and his immediate advisers. 
Ruef held daily consultations with Acting Mayor Gal- 
lagher, Clerk Keane, and his attorney, Henry Ach. 
The public knew little of these consultations, but a 
rumor became current that Mayor Gallagher would sus- 
pend District Attorney Langdon from office. Little 
credence was given this, however. Nevertheless, on the 
night of October 25 Acting Mayor Gallagher suspended 
Langdon from office, and appointed Abraham Ruef to 
be District Attorney to conduct the graft investigation. 94 



94 Acting-Mayor Gallagher's order removing Langdon is printed 
in full in the appendix. One of the charges alleged against 
Langdon was that he had appointed Francis J. Heney to be his 
deputy for ulterior purposes. Of Heney it was alleged that he had 
"in a public speech in said city and county (San Francisco), 
aspersed the character and good name of a prominent citizen of this 
community (Abe Ruef), and stated that he knew him to be cor- 
rupt, etc." 

Acting-Mayor Gallagher's order of removal was made in per- 
suance of Sections 18 and 19 of Article XVI of the San Francisco 
Charter, which read as follows: 

"Sec. 18. Any elected officer, except Supervisor, may be sus- 
pended by the Mayor and removed by the Supervisors for cause; 
and any appointed officer may be removed by the Mayor for cause. 
The Mayor shall appoint some person to discharge the duties of the 
office during the period of such suspension. 

"Sec. 19. When the Mayor shall suspend any elected officer he 
shall immediately notify the Supervisors of such suspension and the 
cause therefor. If the Board is not in session, he shall immediately 
call a session of the same in such manner as shall be provided by 
ordinance. The Mayor shall present written charges against such 
suspended officer to the Board and furnish a copy of the same to 
said officer, who shall have the right to appear with counsel before 
the Board in his defense. If by an affirmative vote of not less than 



86 Graft Prosecution Opens 

The following morning the San Francisco Call, under 
a large picture of Ruef, printed the words : "THIS 
MAN'S HAND GRIPS THE THROAT OF SAN 
FRANCISCO." 



fourteen members of the Board of Supervisors, taken by ayes and 
noes and entered on its record, the action of the Mayor is approved, 
then the suspended officer shall thereby be removed from office; 
but if the action of the Mayor is not so approved such suspended 
tfficer shall be immediately reinstated." 



CHAPTER VI. 

Ruef's Fight to Take the District Attorney's 
Office. 

The impaneling of the Grand Jury was to have been 
completed on October 26. Heney was appointed As- 
sistant District Attorney on October 24. Ruef, to secure 
control of the District Attorney's office before the Grand 
Jury could be sworn, had little time to act. But he was 
equal to the emergency. Gallagher removed Langdon 
and named Ruef as District Attorney the day after 
Heney's appointment and the day before the impaneling 
of the Grand Jury was to have been completed. 

Ruef had, however, considered Langdon's suspension 
from the day of the District Attorney's announcement of 
his plans for investigating graft charges. Gallagher 
testified at the graft trials that Ruef had, several days 
before Langdon's suspension, notified him it might be 
necessary to remove Langdon from office. 95 The Act- 
ing Mayor expressed himself as ready to carry out 
whatever Ruef might want done. 

Gallagher testified that the names of several attor- 



95 Gallagher testified at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 
1437, to the conversation at Ruef's law offices when Ruef first 
broached the matter of Langdon's removal, as follows: "The sub- 
stance of the conversation was that Mr. Ruef stated that it might 
become necessary to remove Mr. Langdon from the office of Dis- 
trict Attorney, and to appoint somebody else. I replied that that 
was a matter for him to make up his mind on; if he determined it 
had to be done, I would do it: words to that effect, I cannot give 
the exact language." 



88 Fight for District Attorney's Office 

neys, including that of Henry Ach, Ruef's attorney and 
close associate, were canvassed as eligible for appoint- 
ment as Langdon's successor. Nothing definite was 
decided upon, however, until the day that Langdon's 
position was declared vacant. On that day, Gallagher 
received word from Ruef to call at his office. There, 
according to Gallagher's statement, he found Thomas 
V. Cator, a member of the municipal Board of Election 
Commissioners. Henry Ach came in later. 

Ruef told Gallagher that he had decided it was nec- 
essary to remove Langdon, and that he had decided to 
take the place himself. Gallagher assured Ruef that 
whatever Ruef decided in the matter he, the Acting 
Mayor, would stand by. The papers removing Langdon 
had already been prepared.. Gallagher read them over, 
for typographical errors, he states in his testimony, and 
signed them. 

The Board of Supervisors was to have met that day 
at 2:30 P. M. in regular weekly session. Gallagher, as 
Acting Mayor, was to preside. But it was well after 
6 P. M. when Gallagher arrived, from Ruef's office, at 
the council chamber. 

He appeared worried and disturbed. The Supervis- 
ors, who had been waiting for him for nearly four 
hours, were called to order. The communication remov- 
ing Langdon was read and adopted without debate or 
opposition. 96 Gallagher then announced that he had 
appointed Ruef to be Langdon's successor. 

B6 The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of October 26, thus 
describes the proceedings attending Langdon's removal: 

"Gallagher took the chair at 6:30 p. m. and there was ten min- 
utes' perfunctory business. 

"His honor Beemed uneasy, i»ui at the careful prompting of 



Fight for District Attorney's Office 89 

How completely Ruef dominated the municipal de- 
partments was showfi by the fact that he filed his bond, 
his oath of office, and his certificate of appointment at 
the various municipal offices without hint of what was 
going on reaching the public. Ruef had commanded 
secrecy, and secrecy was observed. After Gallagher 
had announced Ruefs appointment in open meeting of 
the Supervisors, the filing of the papers was made public. 

Although the Supervisors, in open board meeting, 
endorsed Gallagher's action without apparent hesitation, 
nevertheless the abler among them did so with misgiv- 
ings. Supervisor Wilson went straight from the meeting 
of the board to Ruefs office. He told Ruef that in his 
judgment a mistake had been made; that the papers 
would call the removal of Langdon confession of guilt. 97 



Secretary Keane, he called for 'communications from executive 
officers.' 

"Keane then announced, 'From his honor, the Mayor,' and read 
Gallagher's letter suspending- District Attorney Langdon f for neglect 
of duty' and sundry other charges. 

"During the reading of the long document there was no sound 
in the hall save the hoarse voice of Secretary Keane, and on its 
completion Supervisor Sanderson arose. 

"Gallagher explained that Langdon would 'be given an oppor- 
tunity next Thursday afternoon at 2:30 o'clock to appear before 
the board and defend himself against the charges.' 

"He then recognized Sanderson, who offered a motion accepting 
the communication from the Mayor and directing that Langdon be 
directed to appear to answer. 

"Supervisor Wilson seconded the motion. 

"Upon the call for the 'ayes,' although the Supervisors usually 
let silence indicate their consent, there was a chorus of approval, 
and upon the call for the 'noes' there was dead silence. 

"Supervisors L. A. Rea and J. J. Furey were not present." 

97 At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, page of Tran- 
script 2654, Wilson testified: "I told him (Ruef) that I thought it 
was a bad move at this time and that the papers in the morning 
would state it was simply a confession of guilt; and I said that I 
had stood there and taken my program on the matter, but I felt it 
would ruin my chances in the face of an election, running for Rail- 
road Commissioner, and he said I would feel better after I had 
something to eat, and we went over to Tait's and had supper. On 
the way over he (Ruef) sent Charlie Hagerty in to notify Mr. 
Heney of his removal." 



90 Fight for District Attorney's Office 

But Ruef laughed at his fears, and to cheer him up, 
took him to a popular restaurant for dinner. 

But before leaving his office, Ruef performed his 
first act as District Attorney. He wrote a curt note to 
Heney, dismissing him from the position of assistant. 98 
Later in the evening he appointed as Heney's successor 
Marshall B. Woodworth. 

The order of dismissal was delivered to Heney 
within ten minutes. Heney's answer reached Ruef as he 
sat at dinner with Supervisor Wilson and Henry Ach, 
who had joined the group. Heney's reply was quite as 
pointed as Ruefs letter of dismissal. Heney stated he 
did not recognize Ruef as District Attorney. 

The battle between the two forces was fairly on. 
Ruef and his associates, as they sat at dinner, discussed 
the advisability of taking possession of the District At- 
torney's office that night, but concluded to wait until 
morning. In this Ruef suffered the fate of many a 
general who has consented to delay. When morning 
came, District Attorney Langdon had his office under 
guard, and San Francisco was aroused as it had not 
been in a generation. 

Supervisor Wilson had not misjudged the interpreta- 
tion that would be placed upon Langdon's suspension. 
The Call the following morning denounced Ruef as 
"District Attorney by usurpation ; a prosecuting officer to 
save himself from prosecution." The Chronicle set forth. 



98 Ruefs order dismissing Heney was as follows: 
"Mr. Francis J. Heney: You are hereby removed from the posi- 
tion of Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of San 
Francisco. 

"Dated. October 25, 1006. (Signed) A. RUEF, 

"Acting District Attorney." 



Fight for District Attorney's Office 91 

in a biting editorial article, that "as long as they (the 
Ruef-Schmitz combine) felt safe from prosecution, they 
jauntily declared that they would like to see the accusa- 
tions fully justified, but the instant they began to realize 
the possibility of being sent to San Quentin, they turned 
tail and resorted to a trick which every man in the 
community with gumption enough to form a judgment 
in such matters will recognize as a confession of guilt." 

The Examiner called the removal of Langdon and 
the appointment of Ruef, "the last stand of criminals 
hunted and driven to bay." 

"They have," said the Examiner, "come to a point 
where they will stop at nothing. . . . William H. 
Langdon, the fearless District Attorney, and Francis J. 
Heney, the great prosecutor, have driven the bribe- 
seekers and the bribe-takers to a condition of political 
madness. In hysterical fear they last night attempted 
their anarchistic method of defense." 

The Bulletin devoted its entire editorial page to 
Ruef's new move, heading the article, "Ruef's Illegal 
Action is Confession of Guilt." 

"Nothing," said the Bulletin, "in the history of an- 
archy parallels in cool, deliberate usurpation of authority 
this latest exhibition of lawlessness in San Francisco. 
. . . Government is seized to overthrow government. 
Authority is exercised in defiance of authority. The 
office of the District Attorney is seized deliberately, with 
malice aforethought, with strategy and cunning and used 
as a fort for thieves to battle down the forces of citizen- 
ship. The criminals, accused of felony, after inviting 
investigation and pretending to assist, have shown their 



92 Fight for District Attorney's Office 

hypocrisy by committing an act of anarchy which, while 
it might be tolerated for the time being in San Francisco, 
would result in the execution of these men in any gov- 
ernment of Europe." 

Gallagher's action, while upheld by the Union-Labor 
party leaders, and by the unions which these leaders 
dominated, was condemned by independent labor organ- 
izations. 

The Building Trades Council, with which all the 
building trades unions were affiliated, dominated by 
P. H. McCarthy, promptly endorsed Gallagher's action 
in removing Langdon. But many of the affiliated unions 
not only withheld endorsement, but some of them re- 
pudiated the action of the central body. 

The Bricklayers and Masons' Union, for example, 
with 800 members present, and without a dissenting vote, 
adopted resolutions declaring that "the President and 
Secretary " of the Building Trades Council are not fit 
persons to be at the head of the Union movement in 
San Francisco," and denouncing the course of the mu- 
nicipal administration, which the Building Trades Coun- 
cil had approved, as "high-handed defiance of the law." 100 

In spite of this repudiation by the unions, Ruef issued 

99 P. H. McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, respectively president 
and secretary of the Building - Trades Council. 

ioo The resolutions adopted by Bricklayers' and Masons' Inter- 
national Union No. 7, were as follows: 

"Whereas, The office of District Attorney of San Francisco 
County has been declared vacant by the Acting- Mayor and Super- 
visors at a time -when the said District Attorney was preparing an 
investigation into the official acts of the said Supervisors and 
others; and 

"Whereas, One of the persons accused by the said District 
Attorney of being guilty of criminal acts, has been appointed by 
the Acting Mayor and Supervisors to fill the office thus vacated; 
and 

"Whereas, The Building Trades Council of San Francisco has 
indorsed the action of the administration, and the president and 



Fight for District Attorney's Office 93 

a statement in which he denounced the prosecution as a 
movement "to destroy the Union Labor organization and 
to control the situation in San Francisco in the interest 
of those who are opposed to the success of the wage- 
earning classes." He announced further, "I have ac- 
cepted this office, the first political position I ever held 
in my life, because I believe it to be my duty to the 
public to bring to an end this constant defamation and 
to stop the publication of matter detrimental to the city's 
growth and material interest." 

"I do not intend," he said, "to make any changes in 
the personnel of the District Attorney's office until it is 
determined what fate Mr. Langdon shall meet, with the 
exception that Mr. Heney will not be retained. I will 
not have Mr. Hene3^ in my office because I do not be- 
lieve that his moral standing is equal to the position." 101 

secretary of said Council has aided and abetted said usurpation of 
power to the utmost of their ability; therefore, be it 

"Resolved, That this Union condemn the action of the Council 
in this matter, and that we condemn the president and secretary 
of the Council for lending or selling their aid to help to 'prevent 
the investigation of the public acts of officials who have thrown 
themselves open to suspicion, and thereby placing the honest union 
men of San Francisco in the false light of indorsing such high- 
handed defiance of the law; and be it 

"Resolved, That we deny that the proposed prosecution of the 
present administration is an attack on organized labor; and further, 
be- it 

"Resolved, That it is the sense of this Union that the president 
and secretary of the Building Trades Council are not fit persons to 
be at the head of the Union movement in San Francisco, and that 
the delegates representing this Union in the Council are hereby 
instructed to use every honorable means to carry out the spirit 
of this resolution; and further, be it 

"Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be furnished by the 
corresponding secretary to each and every Union affiliated with the 
Council, so that they will consider this an invitation from this 
Union to assist in ridding the centi-al body of officers whom we 
believe have done all in their power to bring unionism into dis- 
repute." 

Similar resolutions were adopted by Journeymen Plumbers, Gas 
and Steam Fitters' Local, No. 442. 

101 See Ruef's statement as published in the San Francisco 
Chronicle, October 26, 1906. 



94 Fight for District Attorney's Office 

District Attorney Langdon was out of the city when 
Acting Mayor Gallagher announced his suspension from 
office. Langdon hurried back prepared to resist the 
executive's action. 102 Even while Ruef and his asso- 
ciates were debating the advisability of taking possession 
of the District Attorney's office that night, attorneys for 
the prosecution were at work on papers in injunction 
proceedings to restrain Acting Mayor Gallagher, the 
Supervisors and Ruef from interfering with the Dis- 
trict Attorney in the discharge of his duties. The papers 
were not ready before 5 o'clock of the morning of the 
26th. At that hour, Superior Judge Seawell signed an 
order temporarily restraining Ruef from installing him- 
self as District Attorney, and from interfering with 
Langdon in the discharge of his duties as District At- 
torney. By eight o'clock that morning, Presiding Judge 
Graham of the Superior Court had assigned the case to 
Judge Seawell's department ; a police officer and two 
deputy sheriffs had been installed in the District Attor- 
ney's office with instructions to enforce the restraining 
order. For the time, at least, District Attorney Langdon 
was secure in his office. 

Ruef appeared two hours later. He was that morn- 

102 Mr. Lang-don, on arriving- in San Francisco, issued the fol- 
lowing statement: 

"No person in California believes that my alleged suspension is 
due to neglect or inefficiency. No dissent is necessary before the 
people. It is plain that my removal is deemed necessary by Ruef 
and Gallagher to prevent an honest, searching investigation of 
conditions that prevail in municipal affairs in San Francisco. Their 
plan will come to naught, however. 

"As District Attorney I shall pursue this investigation to the 
end. I deny the legal right of the Mayor or the Board of Super- 
visors to suspend or dismiss me. The provision of the Charter 
purporting to give that authority is clearly unconstitutional. The 
citizens must determine whether or not they will countenance this 
hi^h-handed proceeding in a community which is supposed to be 
governed by the law, and not by the will of a boss and his puppet." 



Fight for District Attorney's Office 95 

ing to have represented the defendant in a murder trial, 
The People vs. Denike, but began the day by formally 
withdrawing from the case on the ground that as Dis- 
trict Attorney he could not appear for the defense. He 
appeared in the police courts ready to prosecute a libel 
suit which he had brought against the proprietor of the 
San Francisco Bulletin, but the justice had been served 
with Judge Seawell's restraining order and the libel-case 
hearing was postponed. In Judge Dunne's department 
of the Superior Court, Ruef received something of a set- 
back. The Court made a special order permitting one 
of Langdon's deputies to prosecute in a criminal action 
then pending, regardless of who might be District At- 
torney. The restraining order kept Ruef and Wood- 
worth out of the District Attorney's office. By noon it 
was evident that at the big event of that eventful day, 
the impaneling of the Grand Jury, Langdon, and not 
Ruef, would, as District Attorney, represent The People. 



CHAPTER VII. 
Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled. 

The hard fight of the morning of October 26th to 
prevent Ruef taking possession of the District Attorney's 
office had been carried on practically without the general 
public being aware of the proceedings. Langdon had 
been suspended early in the evening of the previous day. 
The temporary order restraining Ruef from interfering 
with the District Attorney had been signed at 5 o'clock 
in the morning. The general public found by the morn- 
ing papers that Ruef had attempted to seize the office, 
but of the steps taken to stay his hand the papers had 
nothing. The question on every man's lip was : Will 
Judge Graham recognize Ruef or Langdon as District 
Attorney at the impaneling of the Grand Jury? 

The court was to meet at 2 o'clock. Long before 
that hour arrived, the halls of Temple Israel, a Jewish 
synagogue in which several departments of the Superior 
Court met during the months following the great fire, 
were packed with citizens. The street in front of the 
building soon became jammed with a struggling mass of 
men demanding entrance. The crowd became so great 
that none could enter or leave the building. 

Plain-clothes men were on all sides, and succeeded in 
clearing a space about the entrance. The work of clear- 
ing the- building of all who could not show that they 
had business there, then began. In this work, deference 



Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 97 

was shown Ruef's adherents. Notorious saloon-keepers, 
ex-prize fighters and strong-arm men friendly to Ruef 
were permitted to remain. Opponents of the administra- 
tion who protested against - removal were unceremo- 
niously thrown out. 

Although little groups of partisans of the adminis- 
tration appeared in the crowd, the citizens assembled 
were in the main clearly in sympathy with the prosecu- 
tion. 103 The arrival of Langdon, Heney and Spreckels 
was signal for outbursts of applause. Ruef apparently 
appreciated the feeling against him. He appeared guard- 
ed by two detectives of the regular police department, 104 
and a body-guard of partisans. The crowd began to 
press about him. Several of his followers made motions 
as though to draw revolvers. Ruef hurried into the 
building. To add to the confusion, there was, planned 
or without planning, misunderstanding as to the room in 
which the hearing was to be held. The representatives 
of District Attorney Langdon's office finding themselves 
misinformed as to the meeting place, forced their way 
from hall to hall seeking reliable information. When 



103 The San Francisco Chronicle in its issue of October 27 thus 
described the crowd: "Ever}' man the police put out of the build- 
ing - was cheered by the crowd and every time policemen laid hands 
on anyone they were hissed. However, it was evident that the 
citizens who gathered outside the Temple Israel yesterday after- 
noon did not come prepared to fight with the police force. In the 
crowd standing outside almost every man prominent in the business 
and professional life of the city could be seen. Manufacturers, 
merchants, lawyers, doctors, men engaged in all the various lines 
of wholesale and retail business, and all the professions, included 
among the latter being many Protestant ministers, Catholic priests 
and Jewish rabbis. Here and there in the great concourse of peo- 
ple were scattered little groups of men of the type that may be 
seen hanging around the tenderloin." 

104 Detectives Steve Bunner and Tim Riordan. These men 
accompanied Ruef for nearly a month. Late in November, after 
Ruef had been indicted, they were sent back to active duty. 



98 Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 

the room was finally located, it was found to be packed 
with Ruef followers. The sheriff ordered the doors 
closed. The Court's attention was called to this. Dis- 
trict Attorney Langdon insisted that the doors be opened 
and the crowd permitted to enter to the capacity of the 
room. He pointed out that some had been admitted and 
others kept out, and insisted there should be no dis- 
crimination. This course was taken. The crowd poured 
in until every available foot of standing room was occu- 
pied. 105 

Eighteen of the nineteen citizens required under the 
California law for Grand Jury service had already been 
drawn at former sessions of the court. As soon as 
order had been secured, the name of the nineteenth was 
taken from the jury box. 

This detail over, Heney called the Court's attention 
to the provision of the California law, that no person 
whose name does not appear on the assessment roll of 
the county in which he serves is eligible for Grand Jury 
service, and that the courts have held further, that bias 
or prejudice of a Grand Juror against a person indicted 
is sufficient grounds for setting aside the indictment. 
Heney then stated that he wished to examine the nine- 
teen men as to their qualifications as Grand Jurors. 

Ruef, announcing himself as an officer of the court. 



105 While the crowd was pressing into the room, a deputy sheriff 
undertook to search Heney for concealed weapons. Heney com- 
plained of the officer's conduct, protested vigorously. "That is the 
man standing there," cried Heney, "he did so at the request of Ahe 
Ruef." 

"Who was informed that Mr. Heney was armed," responded 
Ruef. 

It developed that Heney was not armed, and the incident went 
no further. But it indicated the sharpness of the division between 
thp two factions. 



Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 99 

arose to speak. Heney objected to Ruef appearing, if 
by officer of the court he meant District Attorney or 
Acting District Attorney. Ruef answered that he ap- 
peared only in his capacity as member of the bar. On 
this showing he was allowed to proceed. 

Ruef contended that the procedure proposed by 
Heney was irregular; that if followed the validity of 
the Grand Jury would be imperiled. He stated that he 
did not want to see the Grand Jury made an illegal body. 

Heney replied that he intended, as Assistant District 
Attorney, to present felony charges against Ruef, and 
desired to examine the prospective Grand Jurors as to 
their bias for or against Ruef. Furthermore, Heney 
insisted, the Court had authority to excuse a juror if 
he were not on the assessment roll. To accept as Grand 
Jurors men whose names were not on the assessment 
roll, or men biased or prejudiced against Ruef would, 
Heney insisted, make the proceedings a farce. 106 

106 The Chronicle of October 27, 1906, contains the following- 
account of Heney's reply to Ruef: " 'I now announce to the 
court,' said Heney fervently, 'that I intend as Assistant District 
Attorney, to present charges of felony and misdemeanor against 
Abraham Ruef, and I desire to examine the members of this panel 
to determine if any member entertains bias or prejudice for or 
against Abraham Ruef in the matter of the charges which are to 
be presented by the District Attorney's office. I understand that 
there is no question as to Abraham Ruef's right to have the indict- 
ment set aside if any member of the Grand Jury is biased or preju- 
diced against him. It would be a farce,' Keney went on, his voice 
swelling, 'it would be adding to the comedy of errors enacted last 
night (the attempted removal of Langdon from office), if we have a 
Grand Jury which is biased or prejudiced. It has become public 
through the newspapers — to some extent, at least — that Abraham 
Ruef is to be investigated. The People have the same right as the 
defendant to examine the members of the panel as to their qualifi- 
cations. I know that a number of the members do not possess the 
qualifications provided by the statute, as they are not on the 
assessment roll, and I desire to question them on that point. The 
Court has the right to excuse a juror if he is not on the assess- 
ment roll. The Supreme Court has decided that a man has the 
right to be investigated by a Grand Jury of nineteen men who are 
qualified according to the statute and none others. It is not neces- 
sary to take for grand jurors the nineteen whose names are first 



ioo Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 

In reply to Heney, Ruef defied him to produce any 
evidence "in open court before an untutored Grand 
Jury for an indictment." Ruef charged Heney further 
with employing abuse "to make the Grand Jury illegal 
so that nothing might come of any indictment." 

At this point, the Attorney General of the State, 
U. S. Webb, 107 addressed the Court. At his suggestion 

drawn from the box. We should examine them, so that a member 
who has a bias or prejudice as to a particular person may be in- 
structed that he shall not participate in the investigation of that 
person.' " 

107 Under the California law, the Attorney-General may at his 
discretion, take the prosecution of a criminal case out of the hands 
of a District Attorney. It was within General Webb's province to 
have taken charge of the San Francisco graft trials. In a state- 
ment given wide publicity at the time, General Webb stated that 
he had no intention of taking charge of the graft trials unless Ruef 
succeeded in seizing the District Attorney's office. Long after, 
however, Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. 
Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally, Tirey L,. Ford, William M. 
Abbott, Abraham Ruef and Eugene E. Schmitz, No. 823, set forth 
a statement made to him by Ruef when Ruef was pleading for 
immunity, in which Webb's presence at the impaneling of the Grand 
Jury was touched upon as follows: 

"Ruef said in reply in substance, 'You are prejudiced against 
me, Heney, ever since we had that quarrel during last election. 
You know that the public-service corporations are responsible for 
the conditions which exist in San Francisco and that I can help 
you send some of the officials of those corporations to the peni- 
tentiary, and I can also help you to clean up this city and make it 
impossible for corruption to get a foothold here again for a long 
time. You are afraid to trust me, but you are making a mistake. 
The moment it becomes known that I have gone over to the prose- 
cution the most powerful influences in this State will all be arrayed 
against us, and particularly against me. The moment you attack 
Pat Calhoun you in fact attack Herrin. You don't know the rela- 
tion between these parties and the corporation as well as I do. I 
am very fond of Tirey Ford, but I don't care a rap about Pat Cal- 
houn,* and would just as soon testify against him as not. But the 
moment it becomes known that I am ready to do so my life will 
no longer be safe. I will have to stick to the prosecution from the 
moment I start in with it. You don't know what desperate means 
these people are capable of resorting to. My life will not be safe. 
If they keep me in the county jail with O'Neil as Sheriff they will 
kill me to a certainty. You don't know how many influential people 
are involved in this thing. You and Burns think you know, but 
there are a lot of people whom you don't know anything about who 
are mixed up in it. I tell you that the combined influence of all 
these people will make it next to impossible to secure convictions, 
and will make it very dangerous for all of us. It will not do to 
lessen the weight of my testimony any by having me plead guilty 
in that extortion case. Besides that, the Court would not allow 
me bail after I had pleaded guilty, and the Supreme Court may 



Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 101 

the Grand Jurors were excused for the day. General 
Webb then stated that he knew of no law for the pro- 
cedure which Mr. Heney suggested. He admitted, 
however, that such procedure would be desirable, and 
advised that no hasty action be taken in coming to a 
decision. 

Heney in reply read from California decisions to. 
show that The People have the authority to make ex- 
amination of Grand Jurors, and continued: 

"The only question remaining is as to when this ex- 
amination shall be made. Suppose the foreman of the 
Grand Jury is biased or prejudiced. Does it require 
any argument that now is the time to make this examina- 
tion instead of waiting until we have presented our evi- 
dence to the Grand Jury? Shall we first have to give 
those whom we accuse time to bribe witnesses and get 
them out of the country? Shall we let the defendant 
come in and quash the indictment, if there is any bias 
or prejudice, and then be enabled to protect himself 
against prosecution? 

"After the miserable fiasco (the attempted removal of 

knock out the elisor, and then I would be absolutely in the hands 
of the other people, and they would surely kill me. Sheriff O'Neil 
is loyal to me now, but the moment he knew I was going to testify 
against Schmitz he would be very bitter against me, and would do 
whatever those people wanted him to do. Moreover, Herrin will 
get Attorney-General Webb to come down and take these cases out 
of the hands of Langdon and yourself, and he will declare the 
immunity contract off upon the ground that the District Attorney 
has no power to make one and will prosecute me on some of the 
bribery cases now pending against me, and if they convict me Her- 
rin will see to it that I am not pardoned by the Governor. He 
now controls the Governor and the chances are he will continue to 
name the Governor and control him for the next twenty years. 
Webb was a deputy in Ford's office when Ford was Attorney- 
General, and it was Ford who got him to come down here and 
'butt in' at the time you were impaneling the Grand Jury. I know 
you fellows thought it was I who got him to come down here, but 
as a matter of fact I did not know any more about it than you did 
until he appeared there, and I am sure it was Ford who did it." 



102 Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 

Langdon) which occurred last night," Heney went on, 
"what more important duty for this Court to perform 
than to say immediately that the law is more powerful 
than any man or any set of men in San Francisco?" 

As Heney concluded, the packed courtroom burst into 
applause. The crowd outside heard, took it up and 
cheered wildly. As soon as order was restored, Henry 
Ach, one of the attorneys appearing for Ruef, suggested 
that Heney, the Attorney General and himself, get to- 
gether to present the question of whether Langdon or 
Ruef were District Attorney to the Supreme Court. 
Ach stated that he feared if Langdon or Heney attended 
a session of the Grand Jury and Ruef were to be found 
to be District Attorney, then the acts of the Grand Jury 
might be invalidated. 

Heney replied that in acting as prosecutor it had 
been his rule "to have no conferences, treaties or alli- 
ances with persons charged with crime, or with their 
attorneys." On this ground, Heney declined Mr. Ach's 
proposition. 

Judge Graham made no rulings that day on any of 
the points raised, but ordered a continuance until the 
following Monday. 

After adjournment of court, the appearance of Lang- 
don and Heney at the entrance of the building brought 
forth cheers from the crowd that all through the pro- 
ceedings had waited outside. A speech was demanded 
of Langdon. 

"My friends," he replied, "we have no speeches to 
make. We have a duty to perform and we will perform 
that duty." 



Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 103 

Immediately behind Langdon came Ruef, closely 
guarded by police and detectives. He was pale and 
worn and clearly frightened. The crowd pressed about 
him. Threats came from his followers to shoot into the 
crowd if it pressed too closely. Ruef finally reached his 
automobile and was driven away. 108 

The topic of discussion of the two days that elapsed 
before Judge Graham decided the questions that had 
been raised by Heney's proposal to proceed with the ex- 
amination of the Grand Jurors, was whether Graham 
would allow such examination. It was alleged that no 
less than four of the citizens drawn for Grand Jury 
service were not on the assessment roll. There were, 



108 While Ruef was struggling through the crowd to reach his 
automobile Dr. Shadwick O. Beasley, Instructor in Anatomy at the 
Cooper Medical College, was assaulted by some unidentified person. 
Dr. Beasley turned, shook his first at Ruef and hissed him. The 
doctor was immediately placed under arrest. Dr. Beasley, on his 
part, swore out a warrant charging an unknown deputy sheriff 
with battery. Beasley was then made subject of petty persecu- 
tion. He was, for example, held up on the street by a deputy 
sheriff and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He was 
searched by two men, but nothing more deadly than a case of 
surgical instruments was found upon him. Dr. Beasley complained 
bitterly of the rough treatment from the officers. 

The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of October 27, 1906, 
thus describes the scene which followed Ruef's appearance before 
the crowd: 

"With fists and clubs Chief of Police Dinan and his squad from 
the Central Police Station fought off the crowd of angry citizens 
assembled about the Temple Israel who sought to lay violent hands 
on Abe Ruef when the curly-headed usurper of the functions of the 
municipal government was leaving the scene of the Grand Jury 
meeting yesterday afternoon. And in the wake of the police were 
the Ruef heelers from the tenderloin with their hands on then 
pistols, threatening to shoot down the citizens of the city of SaR 
Francisco who should dare to approach too near the sacred person 
of their tenderloin idol. 

"It was one of the most remarkable scenes ever witnessed in 
any city of this country. Stung with the outrageous assumption 
of the powers of the public prosecutor when he was about to be 
placed on trial himself for crime, the citizens of the city, among 
whom are names that stand highest in business and professional 
circles, sought to make him realize the impudence of his conduct. 
That he escaped a swift punishment for his arrogant seizure of the 
office of the District Attorney is solely due to the presence and 
strenuous efforts of the nolice." 



104 Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 

too, charges that Ruef controlled several of them. Some 
of the papers printed the names of those whom it was 
alleged were either under obligations to Ruef or con- 
nected with his political organization. 

A second crowd filled courtroom, building and street 
when Judge Graham's court was called to order the fol- 
lowing Monday. Mounted policemen, plain-clothes men 
and detectives, directed by two captains of police, were, 
however, on hand to preserve order. 109 There were no 
demonstrations. Judge Graham announced from the 
bench that after due deliberation, he had concluded that 
the District Attorney had the right to interrogate the 
Grand Jurors as to their qualifications. He stated fur- 
ther that inasmuch as Langdon was the de facto District 
Attorney, Langdon would conduct the examination. 

The prosecution had won the first skirmish in the 
years-long fight upon which San Francisco was entering 
for the enforcement of the law. 

The next move came from Attorney Samuel M. 
Shortridge. Shortridge appeared with Ruef's attorney, 
Henry Ach, and Marshall B. Woodworth. Ruef had 
named Woodworth, it will be remembered, as Heney's 
successor in the District Attorney's office. 

Mr. Shortridge read Acting Mayor Gallagher's order 
suspending Langdon and appointing Ruef, and also 
called the Court's attention to the fact that Ruef had 
filed his official bond as District Attorney. Shortridge 

109 In sending his officers to handle this crowd, Chief of Police 
Dinan gave the following instructions: 

"The captains, sergeants and officers so detailed are instructed 
that they are sent to the place designated for the purpose of doing 
strict police duty. They will see that the streets and sidewalks 
are not obstructed, and that no violations of the law are per- 
mitted." 



Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 105 

stated that the matter was pending before Judge Sea well, 
and asked the Court, "in deference to Judge Seawell," 
to postpone proceedings until the District-Attorney con- 
troversy should be decided. Shortridge expressed him- 
self as fearful that, if the examination of the Grand 
Jurors went on, Judge Seawell's decision might invali- 
date the Grand Jury proceedings. 

W. T. Baggett, Assistant City Attorney, 110 followed 
Shortridge. Mr. Baggett read a letter from the Acting 
Mayor, setting forth the fact of Langdon's removal, and 
joined with Shortridge in pleading for delay. But the 
pleas of both gentlemen were denied. Judge Graham 
repeated his opinion given earlier in the day that Lang- 
don should be recognized as the de facto District Attor- 
ney, and ordered the impaneling of the Grand Jury to 
continue. 

Shortridge thereupon announced his desire to par- 
ticipate in the examination of the Grand Jurors. Heney 
objected to Shortridge appearing as a representative of 
the District Attorney's office. Shortridge replied that 
he respected Judge Seawell's order, and had no intention 
of violating it. He asked if he would be permitted to 
act in the capacity of amicus curiae m in examining 
jurors. This privilege was accorded him. 

The examination of the Grand Jurors occupied more 



110 Under the San Francisco municipal charter, the District 
Attorney has charge of criminal cases, and the City Attorney of 
civil cases in which the city is concerned. The City Attorney also 
acts as adviser to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. The two 
are independent offices. 

111 Shortridge stated that as amicus curiae, it was his duty to 
see that the proceedings were without flaw. Heney refused to take 
him seriously, however, referred to him facetiously as the "curious 
friend of the Court," and suggested that the Court unassisted might 
be able to determine what was competent evidence. 



io6 Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 

than a week. Several of the nineteen were excused, it 
being found that their names were not on the assess- 
ment roll. 

The examination was concluded 112 on November 7th 
and the Grand Jurors sworn. B. P. Oliver was ap- 
pointed foreman. From him the body received its name 
of Oliver Grand Jury. The Grand Jury organized by 
electing C. G. Burnett secretary. But one important 
question remained to be decided, namely — Was Ruef or 
Langdon to represent The People at the investigation 
into graft charges which the Grand Jury was ready to 
begin ? 



112 The following nineteen citizens composed the Grand Jury 
that conducted the investigation of San Francisco "graft" charges: 

E. J. Gallagher, photographic supply dealer; Frank A. Dwyer, 
real estate; Herman H. Young, baker and restaurant proprietor; 
Mendle Rothenburg, liquor dealer; James E. Gordon, merchant; 
Alfred Greenebaum, merchant; Wallace Wise, haberdasher; Jere- 
miah Deasy, insurance agent; Rudolph Mohr, brewer; C. G. Burnett, 
capitalist; Charles Sonntag, merchant; Morris A. Levingston, liquor 
dealer; B. P. Oliver, real estate; W. P. Redington, druggist; Chris- 
tian P. Rode, drayman; Ansel C. Robinson, merchant; Dewey 
Coffin, real estate; F. G. Sanborn, law book publisher; Maurice 
Block, merchant. 



CHAPTER VIII. 
Ruef Loses the District Attorney's Office. 

While the impaneling of the Grand Jury was going 
on before Judge Graham, Ruef was disputing Langdon's 
title to the office of District Attorney before Judge Sea- 
well. In these proceedings Samuel M. Shortridge ap- 
peared with Ruef s attorney, Ach, and Deputy City At- 
torney Baggett, not as amicus curiae, but as Ach's asso- 
ciate in the legal contest to force Langdon out of office. 

The principal feature of Ruef's case was the intro- 
duction of affidavits, signed by sixteen members 113 of 

113 The Supervisors who signed the affidavits exonerating Ruef 
and themselves were: Charles Boxton, Jennings J. Phillips, W. W. 
Sanderson, F. P. Nicholas, L. A. Rea, Edward I. Walsh, Andrew 
M. Wilson, J. J. Furey, Sam Davis, C. J. Harrigan, James T. Kelly, 
P. M. McGushin, Thomas F. Lonergan, Daniel G. Coleman, Max 
Mamlock and M. W. Coffey. Each of them made declaration as 
follows: 

"This affiant has never committed a felony of any kind or char- 
acter, and has never been a party thereto, and there is not and 
can be no evidence presented of or concerning any felony com- 
mitted by the undersigned or threatened by the undersigned. It Isf 
not true that this affiant has ever been party to the commission of 
any crime or any misdemeanor. 

"This affiant further says that any and all charges, assertions 
and innuendoes contained in the complaint and contained in the 
public press of and concerning any alleged felonies, misdemeanors 
or wrongful acts committed or alleged to have been committed by 
this defendant are absolutely untrue and false, and this affiant has 
never been guilty of any violation of the law, and, so far as the 
knowledge of this affiant is concerned, each and all of the other 
defendants named herein are absolutely innocent of the commis- 
sion of any crime or felony or offense against the laws of the 
State of California; and this affiant further says that he has no 
knowledge, direct or indirect, of the commission of any felony or 
or any misdemeanors or of any violations of the laws of the State 
of California, or any thereof, or of the City and County of San 
Francisco, by either or any of the defendants named herein." 

At the graft trials it developed that the Supervisors had signed 
this affidavit without reading it. At the trial of The People vs. 
Glass, No. 675, Supervisor Michael Coffey testified that "On the 
afternoon that affidavit was signed, I came down late to a meeting 



108 Ruef Loses District Attorney's Office 

the Board of Supervisors, in which the Supervisors de- 
nied committing felony of any character. Later, after 
the Supervisors had confessed, these affidavits were to 
be used by the defense at practically all the graft trials 
in efforts to break down their testimony against the 
bribe-givers. 

During the examination, Ach endeavored to force 
from Langdon and his deputies a statement of what evi- 
dence they had against Ruef. In this Ach failed. On 
the other hand, the prosecution sought to bring out tes- 
timony that Ruef had directed Gallagher to suspend 
Langdon. 114 To this end Heney placed Ruef on the 
stand. But Judge Seawell stated 115 that he did not at 
that time wish to go into question of motive and the 
point was not pressed. 

of the board and the members of the board were in the Notary 
Public's office. I went over there and met Mr. Keane, and Mr. 
Keane produced that paper and asked me to sign it, and I signed 
it and gave him a dollar to pay the Notary fees. I did not read the 
affidavit at that time. It was not read aloud to me while I was 
there. I did not talk with any person about what was in this 
affidavit before it was prepared. I did not know who prepared it." 
See page 237 of transcript on appeal. 

Supervisor Wilson testified: "Mr. Ruef got up that affidavit, I 
believe. I signed it because there was a rumor going about that 
some of the Supervisors had gone over to the prosecution. It was 
so stated in the public press and there was a little excitement 
among the members of the board and we understood this was sent 
down by Mr. Ruef to stiffen them up and to find out if that was 
so. It was not read at the notary's office while I was there. 1 
did not read it before signing it." See Transcript on Appeal The 
People vs. Glass, page 278. 

Supervisor Boxton testified: "I signed the affidavit just shown 
me at the request of the clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. 
George Keane. I do not know who prepared the affidavit. No one 
had talked with me as to the facts that were to be put in it. I 
knew nothing about its contents at all. It was supposed generally 
amongst the members there was some talk about it, that there was 
some of the members there that were a bit weak-kneed, and would 
probably tell all they knew, so this affidavit was framed up, as I 
understand it, to tie them down a little tighter." See Transcript 
on Appeal, The People vs. Glass, page 251. 

Practically the same testimony was given by other Supervisors 
at the various graft trials. 

114 See footnote 95, page 87. 

us The passage between Heney and Ruef's lawyers which fol- 



Ruef Loses District Attorney's Office 109 

The outcome of the proceedings was a second victory 
for the prosecution. The injunction against Ruef was 
granted ; 116 Langdon was left in peaceful possession of 
the District Attorney's office. 117 Later, Judge Seawell 
issued a permanent writ of prohibition against the Board 
of Supervisors restraining that body from removing 
Langdon from office. 

Langdon and his deputies, after a three-weeks fight, 
were free to proceed with the graft investigation. 

lowed Judge Seawell's ruling is thus set forth in the San Francisco 
Chronicle of November 3rd: 

" 'You can ask Mr. Ruef if he is guilty of any crimes or felonies,' 
Ach suggested to Heney. 

" 'I suppose he'll plead guilty here?' responded Heney skepti- 
cally. 

"Samuel M. Shortridge, of Ruef's legal staff, took this remark 
to heart and hotly said to Heney, 'You'll plead guilty before he 
does.' The Judge informed Shortridge that Heney obviously spoke 
in jest, but Shortridge thought it a poor joke. Ruef considered 
Heney's whole proceeding a joke." 

lie Judge Seawell in his decision said: 

"I am clearly of the opinion that the Charter, in so far as it 
relates to removal and suspension, does not apply to the District 
Attorney. I am firmly convinced that neither the Mayor nor the 
Board of Supervisors has any power to remove or suspend him. 
The District Attorney should not be left to the investigation of 
the municipal authorities. I can conceive how he might be com- 
pelled to proceed against the very persons who might be conduct- 
ing an inquiry. I will grant the injunction as prayed for against 
Mr. Ruef." 

117 A movement to secure Heney's dismissal from the District 
Attorney's office, on the ground that he had accepted a fee In 
addition to his salary as Assistant District Attorne} 7 , to act as 
prosecutor was started. But the allegation was not sustained and 
another failure was scored by the defense. 



CHAPTER IX. 

RUEF AND SCHMITZ INDICTED. 

Within twenty-four hours after organizing, the Grand 
Jury had begun investigation into graft charges. Ten- 
derloin extortion, especially in connection with the so- 
called "French Restaurants," was the first matter taken 
up. The inquiry involved both Schmitz and Ruef. 

The term "French Restaurant" in San Francisco is 
used in connection with a particular type of assigna- 
tion house. These establishments contain a restaurant 
on the ground floor, and sometimes banquet hall and 
private rooms without assignation accompaniments. The 
stories overhead are devoted to private supper bedrooms. 
Some of these assignation places are several stories in 
height. Before the fire, among the establishments al- 
leged to be "French Restaurants" were Marchand's, 
Delmonico's, the New Poodle Dog, the Bay State and 
the Pup. The extent of the business conducted by these 
places is indicated by the testimony of A. B. Blanco, 
who stated under oath at the graft trials that he had 
$200,000 invested in the New Poodle Dog, while Joe 
Malfanti testified that he had about $400,000 invested in 
Delmonico's. 118 

French Restaurants had long been a scandal in San 
Francisco. Toward the close of 1904, the Police Com- 



ii8 See Transcript on Appeal The People of the State of Cali- 
fornia vs. Eugene E. Schmitz, pp. 500 and 557. 



Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 1 1 1 

mission, then absolutely under domination of Schmitz 
and Ruef, gave evidence of proceeding against such 
places. The commission, as a beginning, revoked the 
liquor license of a "French Restaurant" known as Tor- 
toni's. Without a license to sell liquor a 'Trench Res- 
taurant" could not continue in business. These licenses 
had to be renewed once every three months. The Police 
Commission had arbitrary power to grant, or to refuse, 
application for renewal. One by one renewal applica- 
tions of otfyer French Restaurants were held up. It 
became a matter of common report that all the "French 
Restaurants" were to be treated as Tortoni's had been, 
namely, driven out of business by having their licenses to 
sell liquors revoked. 

And then Abe Ruef appeared before the Police Com- 
missioners as attorney for the "French Restaurant" 
keepers. 119 Ruef asked that consideration of the French 
Restaurant cases be postponed for two weeks. This was 
accorded him. But his request that during those two 
weeks the places be permitted to conduct their business 
as before, namely, that they be allowed to sell liquors 

119 Ruef stated that he appeared as attorney for the French 
Restaurant Keepers' Association. But those who paid him the 
money for his efforts in this instance testified at the trial of The 
People vs. Eugene E. Schmitz that they held membership in no 
such organization, nor had they heard of it. In May, 1907, Ruef 
stated to Heney that he had closed the bargain with the French - 
restaurant keepers to represent them on JANUARY 6, 1905. He 
insisted that he had at first flatly refused to represent them; that 
he had had no intention whatever of so doing until the San Fran- 
cisco Bulletin denounced him for having had the licenses held up 
and challenged him to take the cases and to attempt to defend 
himself upon the theory that the money so obtained by him was 
received as an attorney's fee. 

Heney examined the Bulletin files and found that the first time 
the Bulletin had mentioned the French-restaurant hold-up as an 
attempt on the part of Ruef to extort money from the restaurant 
proprietors was in the last edition of The Bulletin for JANUARY 
7, 1905. (See Heney's affidavit in the case of The People vs. Patrick 
Calhoun, et als., No. 823. pp. 141 to 143, inclusive.) 



ii2 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 

in the private supper bedrooms, was denied by a tie 
vote, two commissioners of the four voting for Ruef 
and two against him. 

Before the two weeks' extension of time which Ruef 
had secured had expired, Mayor Schmitz had removed 
from office one of the commissioners who had opposed 120 
Ruef s request that the sale of liquors in "French Res- 
taurant" bedrooms be continued. 

The opposing commissioner out of the way, the board 
by a vote of two to one, adopted certain rules submitted 
by Ruef for the management of French Restaurants. 121 
By the same vote, the commission then granted the 
French-Restaurant licenses, action upon which had so 
long been delayed. 

All this was done before the public. There were, of 
course, charges of graft and extortion, which most peo- 
ple, although without definite proof, believed. Heney, 
nearly a year later, in his speech in the Partridge 
campaign, referred to in a previous chapter, charged 
graft. A Grand Jury had made 122 an honest attempt 
to get to the bottom of the scandal. The efforts of this 
early Grand Jury came to nothing. 

120 Commisioner Harry W. Hutton. 

121 These Ruef-provided rules directed that no liquors be served 
in supper bedrooms on the first and second floors of the establish- 
ments, and required the French restaurants to take out hotel 
licenses and to keep registers the same as hotels. What the 
keepers of the places thought of the regulations came out at the 
Schmitz trial. Joe Malfanti of Delmonico's, for example, testified: 
"They (the Ruef rules) made no change in the running of my 
business — not a single change. I had a hotel license for years 
before and I always had a register, so there was no change in my 
place whatever." 

122 The Andrews Grand Jury, named from its foreman, T. P. 
Andrews. The work of the Andrews Grand Jury was not lost, 
however. It served as basis for much of the investigation con- 
ducted by the Oliver Grand Jury. 



Rucf and Schmitz Indicted 113 

The Oliver Grand Jury had not been in session a 
fortnight, however, before the whole miserable story of 
Ruef's connection with the French Restaurant cases had 
been spread before it. 

Thomas Regan, who had served as Police Commis- 
sioner during the Schmitz administration, testified that 
as early as the summer of 1904 Schmitz had told him 
that the "French Restaurants" were bad places and 
should not be permitted to exist. When Tortoni's was 
closed, Schmitz stated to Regan, according to Regan's 
testimony, that the French Restaurants were all run 
alike, and should all be closed. Acting upon the Mayor's 
suggestion, the Police Commission ordered the investi- 
gation into the methods of the French Restaurants which 
created such a sensation in San Francisco during the 
closing months of 1904. Licenses were denied in some 
cases. In others, hearings of applications for renewals 
were postponed from time to time. Some proprietors 
were called upon to show cause why their licenses 
should not be revoked. Of all of which, Commissioner 
Regan testified, he kept Mayor Schmitz informed. 

The course of the commission threw the keepers of 
the French Restaurants into a panic. Their attorneys 
found themselves helpless and could give their clients no 
encouragement. Marcus Rosenthal, for example, who ap- 
peared before the commission on January 3, 1905, on be- 
half of the Bay State Restaurant, testified at the Schmitz 
trial, that he was not permitted to say anything ; that the 
commissioners would not listen to him, nor hear testi- 
mony. After that meeting he had advised his client, 
and a little group of "French Restaurant" keepers who 



ii4 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 

had gathered about him, that it would be useless for 
them to appeal to any court, because under the law 
there could be no review of the action of the Police 
Commissioners ; that the commission could arbitrarily 
dispose of any saloon-keeper, and he could not seek 
remedy in the courts. 

And then, having explained the situation fully, Rosen- 
thal told them, what every observer in San Francisco 
knew, "There is only one man who could help you, and 
that is Mr. Ruef." 123 The French Restaurant keepers 
received this advice from all sides. Joe Malfanti testi- 
fied at the Schmitz trial that "numerous friends advised 
me to see Ruef." 

And to Mr. Ruef the "French Restaurant" keepers 
finally found themselves compelled to go — at the urgent 
suggestion of a fellow French Restaurant keeper, Jean 
Loupy. 

Loupy was proprietor of the French Restaurant 
known as the "Pup." At Loupy's place Ruef maintained 
a sort of headquarters. There he took his dinner prac- 
tically every night, entertained friends and received. his 
henchmen. 

Ruef had from time to time acted as Loupy's attor- 
ney. He had also loaned Loupy money. At the time 



123 Rosenthal testified at the Schmitz trial: "I told them from 
my observations and how things were going: in the city and had 
been going for some years, that there was only one man who could 
help them — it was a question of life and death with them — and I 
said there is only one man who could help you, and that is Mr. 
Ruef." 

Rosenthal, when examined on this point before the Grand Jury, 
refused to testify on the ground that conversation between attorney 
and client was privileged. Adler got into trouble with the Grand 
Jury over his testimony on this point. Both Rosenthal find .Adler, 
however, testified at Schmitz's trial. 



Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 115 

of the French Restaurant troubles, Loupy, according to 
his testimony, owed Ruef $1000. 

When the closing of the French Restaurants seemed 
inevitable, this Loupy brought word to the French Res- 
taurant proprietors that Ruef would represent them all 
before the Police Commission for $7000 a year, 124 on a 
contract for two years. The sum was finally cut to 
$5000, 125 $10,000 for the two years. For the first year 
"Marchand's," "Delmonico's," "The New Poodle Dog" 
and the "Bay State" paid $1175 each. Loupy for the 
"Pup," on the grounds that he had been put to considera- 
ble expense and was a poorer man than the others, paid 
only $300. 126 



124 N. M. Adler, proprietor of the Bay State Restaurant, testified 
at the Schmitz trial as to Loupy's negotiations. Loupy called upon 
him twice. "The first time he came," Adler testified, "he told me 
that things were very serious, and we would have to put up some 
monej r and hire Mr. Ruef; that he was the only man that could 
help us. I told him that I could not understand the proposition; 
that I had run my business for twenty years, and didn't think that 
they could do me any harm. At that time Ruef was making his 
headquarters at the Pup restaurant. I could see that from my 
place across the street. He went there regularly." 

Then Adler testified to the meeting before the Police Commis- 
sioners at which his attorney, Rosenthal, had not been permitted 
to speak, and continued: "Afterwards, Loupy came to me again, 
and told me that Tortoni had closed up, and that we should put up 
the money or we would be all closed. This was after we had been 
to the meeting of the Police Commissioners." 

125 The testimony brought out at the graft trials showed that 
Ruef received $8500 from the French restaurants, $5000 the first 
year from the five in the combine; $3000 the second, and $500 addi- 
tional from Camille Mailhebeau. Ruef stated to Heney later and 
so testified at the Schmitz trial, that half of the $8000 received 
from the combine he turned over to Schmitz. 

126 The five restaurant keepers were asked at the Schmitz trial 
whether they had employed Ruef because he was a lawyer or 
because of his recognized power as political boss. They testified 
as follows: 

A. B. Blanco of the "New Poodle Dog" — "Well, being a political 
boss we thought he had influence enough to get our licenses." 

N. M. Adler, of the "Bay State"— "Well, the way I took it, Mr. 
Ruef is a boss. He had an influence over the commission. He was 
the only man who could help us." On cross-examination: "I 
understood that if I did not employ Ruef I would not get my 



n6 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 

The money being paid over to Ruef, 127 Ruef ap- 
peared before the Police Commissioners, as has already- 
been told, with his plan for regulating the French Res- 
taurant business in San Francisco. 

Ruefs arrangements with the French Restaurant 



license. I understood that Mr. Ruef was the only man who could 
get my license." 

Michel Debret of "Marchand's" — "Well, I agreed to (pay the 
money to Ruef) because having consulted we saw we had no way 
to get out of it unless we paid Ruef, as he was a political boss, to 
protect ourselves." "Because we thought — we thought if we didn't 
pay the money we would be treated like Tortoni's, we would be 
closed; we had no way to get out of it." "I believed that Ruef 
and the Mayor controlled the Police Commissioners." 

Joe Malfanti of "Delmonico's" — "I did not pay this $1175 for 
fun; I had to save my license. I had about $400,000 invested there. 
I never figured on what effect it would have upon my business if I 
did not get a license. If it was for myself alone I would close 
the place, but I figured on my partners, what they had paid. They 
had a lease for five years and could not go through with it and I 
did it as a favor. If I was alone I would close. I would not 
make any fight. Numerous friends advised me to see Ruef." "I 
went to Ruef — Ruef was the man that controlled the administra- 
tion — Ruef was the one that could do the thing. His relation with 
the Mayor was so he could do what he pleased." 

Jean Loupy was asked by Heney: "Did you go to him (Ruef) 
because he was a lawyer or because he was a political boss?" 
"Because he was a political boss," replied Loupy. 

127 Ruef would not take a check, neither would he accept gold 
— he insisted upon having currency — neither would he give a re- 
ceipt. The money was taken to him by Pierre Priet, a French- 
restaurant keeper. Regarding the transfer of the money, Joe 
Malfanti, at the Schmitz trial, gave the following testimony: 

"Mr. Heney — Q. What did he say you were to get for the five 
thousand dollars, Priet? A. Yes. 

"Q. Yes, what did Priet say you were to get for your money? 
A. We were going to get the license. 

"Q. For two years? A. No, we were going to have no trouble 
for two years about a license. 

"Q. Five thousand dollars a year? A. Yes, sir. 

"Q. Now, then, what was said about how the money was to be 
paid? What did Priet say about how the money was to be paid? 
A. In currency. 

"Mr. Campbell — That is under the same objection and exception. 

"The Witness — And that two people, not three, only two people, 
not three. 

"Mr. Heney — Q. What do you mean, that no one was to go 
with him to Ruef? A. Yes. 

"The Witness — Priet said the money should be brought there in 
currency and paid with two people. 

"Q. Did Priet get you a receipt? A. I don't think he ever 
looked for any. I asked him about that when he came back. He 
said: 'Well, you should be glad to get his word of honor.' That 
is what I got from Priet." 



Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 117 

keepers were concluded during the first week in January. 
Police Commissioner Regan testified that sometime after 
January 3, Mayor Schmitz asked him to vote to restore 
the French Restaurant licenses. 128 Regan objected on 
the ground that it was not right to ask him to vote first 
one way and then another. With Commissioners Regan 
and Hutton voting against issuing the licenses, the li- 
censes could not be granted. Either Hutton or Regan 
had to change their attitude, or one of them had to be 
removed from office. Police Commissioner F. F. Poheim 
testified at the Schmitz trial that at a conference on the. 
French Restaurant problem held early in January, 1905, 
which he and Schmitz attended, Schmitz announced: 
"We will have to give these people (the French Res- 
taurant proprietors) their licenses if we can. If we 
cannot do anything else we will have to remove Hutton." 
And during the week following Ruef's first appear- 
ance before the commissioners as representative of the 
French Restaurants, Mayor Schmitz removed Hutton. 129 



128 Regan testified at the Schmitz trial: 

"The Mayor asked me to vote for the French liquor licenses. 
The first time he did so he put it on political grounds. He re- 
quested me to vote for them, saying it would hurt him politically 
if the license was not granted; and that they had so many friends 
and so many rich people frequented those places that it would be 
a very unpopular thing to take the licenses away, and he re- 
quested me to vote for them. That it would be unpopular to take 
them, the licenses, away, as they, the restaurants, had so many 
friends and so many rich people frequented the places. I said I 
didn't think it was right, that he knew he got me to close those 
places up. That I could not vote for them, as they were immoral 
and should be closed. The second conversation was all of the same 
tenor." 

129 Commissioner Poheim took papers from Ruef's office to the 
Mayor on the day of Hutton's removal. Poheim testified at the 
Schmitz trial: 

"I took papers from Mr. Ruef's office that I believe were the 
papers of removal. He told me that they were. That was the day 
of Hutton's removal." 



1 1 8 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 

The licenses were then issued to the "French Restaurant" 
keepers. 130 

Much of the story of these transactions was presented 
to the Grand Jury. But the evidence was not secured 
without effort. Many of the witnesses were unfriendly ; 
others afraid of the consequences of frank statement of 
facts. Witnesses disappeared and could not be found. 
Several known to have testified were threatened and even 
assaulted. One French Restaurant keeper, before the 
investigation had been concluded, had been indicted for 
perjury. Three attorneys who were more or less in 
touch with the tenderloin situation had been cited for 
contempt for refusing to answer questions put to them 
in the Grand Jury room. But point by point the evi- 
dence was presented. 

130 The Chronicle in its issue of February 1, 1907, thus sum- 
marized the evidence against Schmitz and Ruef, and the nature of 
their defense: 

"Those operations are these: There are in this as in all other 
cities certain dens of vice, ranging from the very fashionable down 
to those patronized by the dregs of society, which can exist only 
when licensed to sell liquor. To give or withhold the license is 
within the discretion of the Police Commissioners, and from their 
action there is no effectual appeal. Since Ruef got control of the 
majority of these commissioners they have been mere puppets, 
giving or withholding the licenses of these places as directed by 
Schmitz. That being the case, when renewals of licenses were 
necessary, the applicants were refused. That meant the ruin of 
their business. In the end, either from their general knowledge, 
or because as advised, they applied to Ruef. When the fee was 
settled and paid — in the case of the French restaurants $5,000 a 
year — Ruef notified Schmitz, who, as the prosecution is evidently 
prepared to prove, then directed the licenses to issue, and they 
were issued. In the aggregate, enormous sums were annually 
collected from these places by Ruef or his agents, and without 
that payment they could not have continued business. The reve- 
nues thus obtained were evidently the sources of Schmitz's sud- 
denly acquired wealth. Presumably some small share was paid to 
the subordinates. 

"Certainly that is extortion, and extortion of the most villainous 
kind. To the ordinary reader it is completely covered by the lan- 
guage of the statute. The contention of Ruef and Schmitz is not 
that they did not get the money, or that it was not a villainous 
thing, but merely that it was not a villainy expressly forbidden by 
statute, and thai therefore to indict them for it is 'persecution.' 
If there are any people in the city who uphold or condone such 
tiling!-: they are no better than Ruef or Schmitz themselves." 



Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 119 

The Grand Jury, on the evidence, indicted Schmitz 
and Ruef on five counts for extortion. 131 Bonds were 
fixed at $10,000 on each charge, $50,000 for each de- 
fendant. 

Ruef 132 was released on $50,000 bail. 



131 The press throughout the State was a unit in approving the 
Grand Jury's action. The San Francisco Chronicle fairly expressed 
the general sentiment. It said: 

"Every decent man in San Francisco breathes freer to-day. 
The fact cannot be concealed that there was an uneasy feeling in 
the community that the machinations of the boss would again se- 
cure immunity for himself and those who were with him in the 
grafting business. The facility with which he turned the Grand 
Jury preceding the present one into an instrument to accomplish 
his own purposes inspired the fear that by hook or crook he may 
have obtained control of the one now sitting; but the promptitude 
with which the first indictment was brought allays all apprehen- 
sion and converts it into confidence that the body now in session 
is in deadly earnest and that it will earn the gratitude of its fel- 
low citizens and cover itself with glory by striking an effective 
blow which will put an end to flagrant venality in office and re- 
store the good name of San Francisco." 

The San Francisco Examiner said of the indictment of Schmitz 
and Ruef: "The light breaks, the reign of political terror seems 
at an end. Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz and Abe Ruef, his mentor 
and master, have been indicted for extortion. The move of polit- 
ical regeneration and civic reform that has been sweeping the 
country has hit San Francisco with the force of all the other suc- 
cesses behind it. In other cities and other States the powerful 
rascals as well as their satellites have been sent to prison. Evi- 
dently San Francisco and California are to rid themselves of the 
arch political criminals. . . . Thursday, November 15, 1908 (the 
day on which Ruef and Schmitz were indicted), is a day to be re- 
membered. It marks the beginning of San Francisco's regenera- 
tion. It is a day of heroic events to be told to children and 
grandchildren. It is the day of the declaration of independence of 
California's great metropolis." 

132 Ruef denounced his indictment as absurd, insisting that he 
had merely taken fees for services rendered. In an interview pub- 
lished in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 16, 1906, he said: 

"The whole thing is absurd. I was simply acting in the relation 
of attorney to a client. I took my fee for rendering legal services. 
I was retained by a contract as attorney by the restaurant keepers. 
If it is extortion for an attorney to accept a fee from his client, 
we all might as well go out of business. This is exactly the same 
charge that was made against me once before and was found base- 
less. I have nothing to fear." 

On November 17 the Chronicle, touching upon Ruef's defense. 
said: "Every branch of the city government which is controlled 
by Ruef men is known to be utterly rotten. The only question has 
been whether under the advice and direction of low legal cunning, 
the grafters have kept themselves immune from the law. And the 
question is about to be settled." 



120 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 

Schmitz, the day after the indictments were brought, 
was reported to have started for home from Europe. 

Schmitz's probable reception on his arrival at New 
York apparently gave keen anxiety at San Francisco. 

Heney states that Justice F. W. Henshaw called at 
his (Heney's) office and asked Heney, as a favor, to tell 
him whether Schmitz would be arrested upon his arrival 
in New York, as William J. Dingee of the Contra Costa 
Water Company, wanted to arrange for Schmitz's bail 
in New York City. William F. Herrin of the Southern 
Pacific Company is credited with interesting himself in 
Schmitz's behalf in arranging for the bond that was 
furnished when Schmitz reached San Francisco. 
Schmitz's bond was furnished by Dingee and Thomas 
Williams, president of the New California Jockey Club. 
The New California Jockey Club operated the notorious 
Emeryville racing and gambling establishment. Mr. 
Dingee was at the time one of California's most promi- 
nent capitalists. 



CHAPTER X. 

Fight to Evade Trial. 

The indictments against Schmitz and Ruef were re- 
turned November 15. Schmitz reached San Francisco 
on his return from Europe on November 29. 133 He at 
once joined with Ruef in the fight to prevent the issue 
raised by his indictment being presented to a trial jury. 

133 On his arrival in New York after being indicted for extortion 
in the French Restaurant cases, Mayor Schmitz in an interview 
widely published at the time gave his attitude toward the French 
Restaurants. The Mayor explained that these restaurants had ex- 
isted so long in the city that they had become a recognized adjunct 
of a gay life of a gay town. He had not favored their suppression, 
and whenever the Police Commissioners agitated the revoking of 
their liquor licenses, he had opposed them. 

"The French restaurants did no great harm," he is quoted as 
saying, "and to destroy them would be to ruin the men who had 
invested money in them." The character of some of the heavy in- 
vestors in these establishments was brought out in the report of 
the commission appointed by Mayor E. R. Taylor to ascertain 
causes of municipal corruption in San Francisco, as disclosed by 
the investigations of the Oliver Grand Jury. The report set forth: 

"The business (of the French restaurants) is very prosperous, 
and, as is usual, the landlord shares in its prosperity. People of 
social prominence were known to accept a portion of the profits 
of such establishments, through the extremely liberal rentals paid, 
and the system is received with easy toleration. One of the largest 
of these assignation places was located on a prominent corner of 
the downtown shopping district where hundreds of women daily 
passed its doors. The building, five stories in height, had four 
stories devoted to the private supper bedrooms. The land was 
owned in trust by one of the largest, if not the largest, trust com- 
pany in the West. A lease was sought and obtained by a man no- 
torious in the line of business above described; the building was 
constructed by the trust company according to plans satisfactory 
to him for this purpose, and the enterprise was conducted there for 
seven years until the building was destroyed by fire. The signifi- 
cant thing about such a transaction is, not that there are people 
who are willing to accept money from such a source, or financiers 
willing to put trust moneys to such uses, but that the facts, though 
well known, did not se«m to detract in the slightest from the social 
recognition accorded to the persons so taking a share of the profits, 
while the officer of the trust company which made the lease of that 
particular house situated in the shopping district, was appointed a 
regent of the State University." 



122 Fight to Evade Trial 

The two defendants were to have been arraigned on 
December 3, but at their earnest solicitation arraign- 
ment 134 was continued until December 6. 

On that day the plans of the defendants became ap- 
parent. It was seen that they would divide the defense, 
demanding separate trials ; and it was quite as evident 
that their first move would be an attack upon the validity 
of the Grand Jury. 

Attorneys Frank C. Drew and John J. Barrett ap- 
peared for Schmitz, while Ruef was represented by 
Samuel M. Shortridge and Henry Ach. At the close of 
the proceedings, Ach asked that subpoenas be issued for 
the members of the Grand Jury to appear in court the 
following Monday to testify for the defendants. This 
meant the examination of the Grand Jurors for bias. 



134 During the reading of the first of the five indictments, 
Schmitz stood, but Ruef remained seated. When the second indict- 
ment was read, both the defendants kept their seats. Heney de- 
manded to know what was going on. Judge Dunne announced that 
the arraignment must proceed as in ordinary cases. During the 
reading of the remaining indictments both defendants remained 
standing, but Ruef kept his back turned toward the court. Com- 
menting upon this incident, the Chronicle, in its issue of December 
8, 1906, said in an editorial article: 

"In Judge Dunne's court a rogue on trial insolently refused to 
stand and be arraigned like any other criminal, apparently on the 
assumption that a political boss was above the courts. He was 
finally compelled to stand and let his shame be seen. He sat, how- 
ever, through one arraignment, and the people have reason to com- 
plain that the trial Judge did not earlier enforce the respect due to 
the majesty of the law. In another instance there is a more grave 
offense. A lawyer presumed to bandy words with the Judge on 
the bench, and is reported to have said to the Court in a loud and 
insolent tone, evincing evident disrespect, 'And I have heard con- 
siderable oratory from you.' Nothing was done about it, and Judge 
Dunne owes it to the people to explain why he did not promptly 
commit the insolent fellow to jail. The Judge on the bench repre- 
sents the majesty of the law. He sits for the people in solemn 
judgment on offenders. He is expected to enforce due respect for 
the tribunal, and for that purpose is invested with the power of 
summary punishment for contempt. Our alleged administration of 
criminal justice is disgraceful, and the evil permeates the entire 
machinery, from the policeman on his beat to the highest tribunal." 



Fight to Evade Trial 123 

The long technical fight to disqualify the Grand Jury 
had opened. 133 

In the attack upon the Grand Jury, Joseph C. Camp- 
bell joined with Schmitz's attorneys, Drew and Barrett, 
while Frank J, Murphy and Charles H. Fairall appeared 
with Shortridge and Ach for Ruef. Ach, in moving to 
set aside or quash the indictments, stated that the motion 
was made for Schmitz and Ruef jointly, but that the 
defendants reserved the right to plead and to be tried 
separately. 

135 The attack upon the Grand Jury had, however, been begun 
the day before, and was progressing' in another department of the 
court even as Ruef and Schmitz were arraigned. Investigation into 
graft conditions had by this time got beyond the tenderloin. Sev- 
eral minor indictments had been brought. Supervisor Fred P. 
Nicholas had been indicted for accepting a bribe of §26.10. As 
chairman of the Public Building and Grounds Committee, the Grand 
Jury found he had accepted a 10 per cent, commission on $261 
worth of furniture purchased for the city. Several witnesses 
had been indicted for perjury in connection with the graft in- 
vestigation. That the investigation was going far was now con- 
ceded. The defense concentrated to disqualifj^ the Grand Jury. On 
behalf of Nicholas and Duffy, the Grand Jurors were haled into 
Judge William P. Lawlor's court December 5, the day before 
Schmitz and Ruef were arraigned. The defendants were repre- 
sented by Frank J. Murphy, who was to play a prominent part in 
the graft defense. The following taken from the examination of 
Foreman B. P. Oliver, as printed in the San Francisco Chronicle 
of December 7, is a fair sample of the nature of the inquiry: 

"Did you say to anyone that this is just the beginning of the 
investigation of municipal corruption?" 

"I have said that from the statements I have heard in the Grand 
Jury room that the corruption of the municipal administration was 
so great that the present Grand Jury could hardly expect to make 
any impression upon it. As to when and where I made that state- 
ment I cannot tell," replied Oliver, who proceeded: "As to myself, 
the mere testimony I have heard in the Grand Jury room has filled 
me with horror and disgust." 

"Does it fill you with such horror that you believe everyone con- 
nected with the administration is corrupt?" asked Lawyer Fairall 
of counsel for the defense. "I do not believe anyone to be corrupt 
until he is proved to be so." 

"Could you act fairly and impartially, as a Grand Jtfror, while 
having your present feeling of horror and disgust?" "Yes, abso- 
lutely so, for I have a conscience." 

"You feel that your conscience would enable you to act fairly?" 
"I do. If I erred at all it would be on the other side, so as to be 
sure that I did the accused no injustice." 

This examination went on for several days. The same examina- 
tion of the Grand Jurors followed in the case of Ruef and Schmitz, 
and was repeated for the third time on behalf of public-service cor- 
poration agents who were indicted later. 



124 Fight to Evade Trial 

Ach's motion was based on nineteen counts. The 
point most insisted upon was that Grand Juror Wallace 
Wise was disqualified because of his having been on a 
petty trial jury panel during the current year. Wise, 
being thus disqualified, Ach argued, the whole indict- 
ment failed as much as though the whole nineteen Grand 
Jurors were disqualified. 136 

Judge Dunne, after a three days' hearing, swept 
aside the multitude of technical objections which the va- 
rious attorneys for the defense had advanced. In par- 
ticular did he refuse to declare the whole nineteen 
Grand Jurors disqualified, because of the alleged dis- 
qualification of Juror Wise. 

The prosecution had gained another point in its fight 
to bring the defendants to trial on the merits of their 
cases. 

But the attack upon the Grand Jury had scarcely 
begun. After Judge Dunne's ruling, the nineteen Grand 
Jurors were to be put on the stand and examined one 
by one for bias. 137 The defense went further, and had 

136 The question of the eligibility of Grand Juror Wise was 
finally decided by the State Supreme Court in the matter of the 
application of A. Ruef for a writ of habeas corpus (150 California, 
p. 665.) The Court held that the presence on the Grand Jury of a 
member who had served and been discharged as a juror by a court 
of record within a year of the time that he had been summoned 
and impaneled to act as a grand juror does not affect the validity 
of an indictment found by the Grand Jury. 

137 The Chronicle, in its issue of December 18, 1906, said of the 
attack upon the Grand Jury: 

"The fact that the felons whom we are trying to convict are 
officials has nothing to do with their demonstration of the fact that 
it is impossible, under the laws, to put thieves in the penitentiary, 
when there is a large band rounded up at one time and they all 
fight. Under our laws the half-dozen rascals who have already been 
indicted for their share in the orgy of official plunder in this city 
can block our criminal courts. The disgraceful farce of putting 
the Grand Jurors and the District Attorney on trial instead of the 
scoundrels who have been indicted can apparently be protracted 
for weeks. Happily the Legislature meets early next month, and if 



Fight to Evade Trial 125 

Rudolph Spreckels up to question him as to his motives 
in guaranteeing a fund for the investigation of graft 
conditions. 138 District Attorney Langdon was also 
placed on the stand to be examined as to his motive in 
appointing Heney his assistant. He denied most em- 
phatically that he had appointed Heney for the sole pur- 
pose of instituting criminal proceedings against Ruef and 
Schmitz. 

The examination of Grand Jurors, prosecutors and 
citizens lasted from December 17 until January 22. On 
the last named date, Judge Dunne denied the motion to 
set aside the indictments for bias. The prosecution had 
gained another step toward bringing the defendants to 
trial. 

Judge Dunne stated that he was ready to set the 
cases for trial the next day. But the defendants had 

it does not put a speedy end to it we are mistaken. We are get- 
ting an object lesson which, perhaps, was needed. The whole mis- 
erable machinery of obstruction must be swept away. Whoever is 
indicted by a Grand Jury must go to trial, unless, in the opinion of 
the trial Judge, extraordinary conditions indicate that some inquiry 
should be made to be conducted solely by himself. The public will 
be satisfied with nothing short of that, nor will it be satisfied with 
that. The abuses of appeal must be ended." 

138 Mr. Spreckels testified in part as follows: "I am not inter- 
ested in the downfall of any man, either Eugene E. Schmitz or 
Abraham Ruef. I did guarantee the sum of $100,000 to detect any 
wrongdoing whatsoever in the city of San Francisco. I indicated 
that to Mr. Heney. I cannot recollect as to dates, but I think it 
was a short while before the commencement of these proceedings. 
It was since the calamity of April 18. I had been interested for a 
long while before that in starting an investigation. ... I did 
not guarantee to Mr. Heney $100,000, but I did guarantee that for 
the purpose of investigation for the collection of evidence, I would 
personally guarantee $100,000 for the expenses. . . . My object 
was merely to ascertain the truth or falsity of things that had 
been generally stated. Some of the things I had known of myself. 
I knew there was an effort made in the city here of doing things 
in the past. Mr. Ruef, himself, had had a conversation with me 
which indicated that he was in a position to do certain things, 
and knowing these things I was willing that an investigation should 
proceed to the bottom, and to furnish the money necessary to col- 
lect the evidence. I have stated publicly relative to this fund of 
$100,000." 



126 Fight to Evade Trial 

another delaying play. They demurred to the indict- 
ments. The demurrers were not disposed of until Feb- 
ruary 18. 

In the meantime, the defense had made several com- 
plicating moves. The first of these was an application 
to Judge Graham to have the case against Schmitz 
transferred from Judge Dunne's court. At the same 
time Schmitz surrendered himself to the Sheriff, and 
applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas cor- 
pus, and a writ of prohibition, setting up the points 
already raised in Judge Dunne's court against the indict- 
ments. The Supreme Court finally decided against 
Schmitz. 

But there remained another way of having the case 
transferred from Judge Dunne's court. The law gov- 
erning changes of venue could be changed by the Legis- 
lature. The 1907 Legislature had convened early in Jan- 
uary. A measure was introduced in both Senate and 
Assembly under the terms of which a defendant in a 
criminal action was permitted to secure a transfer of his 
case from one court to another by merely filing affidavit 
of his belief that he could not get fair trial in the court 
in which his case was pending. 139 The measure was 

139 The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of January 17, 1907, 
said of the Change of Venue bill: 

"Assemblyman Grove L. Johnson of Sacramento, and Senator I». 
A. Wright of San Diego, have introduced identical bills which pro- 
vide in brief, that in any criminal trial the accused may displace 
the Judge upon his mere affidavit that he 'believes he cannot have 
a fair and impartial trial.' Upon the filing of such an affidavit the 
services of some other Judge must be secured, provided that in 
counties having more than one department of the Superior Court 
the case shall be transferred to some other department of the same 
county. The bill provides that the act shall take effect immediately 
upon its passnge. The obvious intent of the law is to enable the 
Indii I'd boodlers of this city to select the Judge who shall try them, 
to set aside all that has thus far been done to get them before a 
jury and have their cases retried from the beginning." 



Fight to Evade Trial 127 

known as the "Change of Venue Bill." Its chief sup- 
porter in the Legislature was George B. Keane. 

Keane was not only clerk of the Board of Supervis- 
ors, but he was a member of the State Senate represent- 
ing a San Francisco district. Keane championed the 
"Change of Venue Bill." 140 The measure passed the 
Assembly, but failed of passage in the Senate. Ruef in 
his efforts to escape trial before Judge Dunne had lost 
again. 

Early in February, when the efforts of Schmitz and 
Ruef to evade trial were being pressed the hardest, agita- 
tion against the Japanese gave Schmitz opportunity not 

140 Ruef had, as early as 1904, secured a hold on the State Leg- 
islature, by putting up and elcting a Union Labor party legislative 
ticket. "I told the legislators," said Ruef in a statement published 
after he had entered San Quentin prison, "to vote on all labor ques- 
tions and legislation directly involving labor interests always for 
the labor side. I told them on all other questions to follow the 
Herrin program. Herrin was appreciative. He expressed his sense 
of obligation." — Abraham Ruef's "The Road I Traveled," published 
in San Francisco Bulletin, July 6, 1912. 

Keane, at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, admitted 
that he had supported "The Assembly bill providing for changes of 
place of trial in certain cases," at the special request of Ruef. See 
transcript on appeal, part 3, book 1, pages 442-3. Keane was also 
active in the advocacy of other measures changing the law govern- 
ing criminal cases. One of these practically forbade public comment 
on a criminal trial from the impaneling of the Grand Jury until the 
rendering of the verdict. Commenting upon this anti-publicity bill, 
E. H. Hamilton, in a dispatch from Sacramento to the San Francisco 
Examiner, published in that paper March 5, 1907, said: "This bill 
had been sneaked through the Senate the other night when no one 
was paying any attention, but Senator Boynton moved to reconsider 
the vote by which the bill was passed, and brought up the matter 
to-day, asking that the bill be given a free discussion before it was 
acted upon. He showed that it was directly in opposition to the 
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State, 
because it was aimed directly at the freedom of the press and in- 
tended to prevent newspapers from publishing accounts of criminal 
trials. 

"Senator Sanford of Mendocino said that it was an attempt to 
muzzle the press and to prevent people from ascertaining what was 
going on in criminal lav/suits, but the Senate refused to reconsider 
the vote by which it had passed the unconstitutional bill." 

Keane also pressed an amendment to the codes to prevent sten- 
ographers and bookkeepers testifying against their employers. Dur- 
ing the discussion in the Senate Committee on the Change of Venue 
bill, Keane offered an amendment to make this measure take effect 
immediately. 



128 Fight to Evade Trial 

only to absent himself from the State, thus bringing the 
proceedings so far as they applied to him, to a standstill, 
but to restore his prestige. Schmitz was quick to avail 
himself of the situation. 

The question of admitting Japanese to California 
schools was then under consideration at Washington. 
A request was extended the San Francisco Board of 
Education, through California Congressmen, that the 
members of the board go to Washington for confer- 
ence with the government authorities. Members of the 
board held consultation with Schmitz, after which word 
was circulated about the State that in defense of the 
public schools against the Japanese, Schmitz must, on 
behalf of San Francisco and California, go to Washing- 
ton. 

A telegram was received from Congressman Julius 
Kahn, a close supporter of Ruef and Schmitz, who rep- 
resented a San Francisco district in Congress, stating 
that "at the request of the President and Secretary of 
State we ask you to come here immediately for a con- 
ference with them and the California delegation." 

Schmitz started for Washington on February 3. 141 . 
He was absent from San Francisco until March 6. He 
did not, however, as had been predicted, return amid 
popular acclaim. The outcome of the Washington nego- 
tiations was not satisfactory to California. There was 

i4i On the way across San Francisco Bay to take the train at 
Oakland, in the words of newspaper reports of the incident, mem- 
bers of Mayor Schmitz's personal following who accompanied him, 
"were frankly delighted with the prospect of the indicted Mayor 
returning from the national capital covered with glory, and ac- 
claimed the savior of the country from a war with Japan." 

Ruef regarded the incident cynically. "As soon as Schmitz got 
aboard that train," said Ruef on the day of the Mayor's departure, 
"tho nation was saved." 



Fight to Evade Trial 129 

popular belief that the Mayor's mission had failed. At 
the State line Schmitz received the startling word that 
Ruef was a fugitive from justice; that Sheriff O'Neil 
had failed to discover the fugitive's whereabouts and had 
been disqualified. During the month of his absence 
from San Francisco, the Mayor was soon to learn, events 
of tremendous importance to himself and to his admin- 
istration had occurred. 



CHAPTER XL 

Ruef a Fugitive. 

Three months 14a after his indictment in the "French 
Restaurant" extortion cases — three months of continuous 
fighting to evade the issue — Ruef found his last technical 
obstruction, as far as the State courts were concerned, 
swept away, and was forced to enter his plea to the 
charge contained in the indictment. He pleaded "not 
guilty." His trial was set for March 5. 

Up to the day before the date fixed for the trial to 
begin, nothing had come up to indicate further delay. 
On March 4, however, Ruef's bondsmen surrendered 
him into the custody of the Sheriff. Ruef then applied 
to Superior Judge J. C. B. Hebbard for a writ of habeas 
corpus. The application was based on the allegation 
dealt with in a previous chapter, that Grand Juror Wise 
was ineligible, because he had been drawn as a trial 
juror within a year before the impanelment of the 
Grand Jury of which he was a member. On the ground 
that Wise was ineligible for Grand Jury service, Ruef's 
attorneys contended, their client's restraint was in viola- 
tion of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the 
Federal Constitution, thereby raising a Federal issue and 
paving the way for appeal to the Federal courts. 

142 Ru<»f nnd Rr-hmitz were Indicted November 15, 1906. The date 
of Ruef's plea of "Not guilty" was February 18, 1907. 



Ruef a Fugitive 131 

In opposing Ruef's new move, Hiram W. Johnson, 143 
who had been employed to assist the District Attorney 
in the "graft" prosecution, pointed out that the cases 
named in the petition were pending in a co-ordinate 
branch of the Superior Court; that they were set for 
trial the following day; that the points, including the 
Federal points, had been made subject of extensive argu- 
ments before Hebbard's colleague, Judge Dunne, and 
in the course of those arguments every question pre- 
sented in the proceedings had been passed upon. 

Ach, representing Ruef, denied that the Federal ques- 
tion had been presented. Johnson insisted that it had. 
An unfortunate scene followed. 144 Hebbard showed 
symptoms of intoxication. Johnson, Langdon and 
Heney finally refused to participate further in the pro- 
ceedings and walked out of the courtroom. 145 

143 Hiram W. Johnson is a native of California, having been 
born at Sacramento. He was educated at the Sacramento public 
schools and the University of California. At twenty-one he had 
been admitted to practice at the California bar. He was active for 
years against the corrupt political conditions in California before 
he came into prominence as one of the prosecutors at the graft 
trials. In 1910 he was selected to lead the movement against the 
political machine which dominated the State. As primary candi- 
date for Republican nomination for Governor, he visited practically 
every community in California, making one pledge to be carried 
out in the event of his election, "to kick the Southern Pacific out 
of political control of the State." He was nominated and elected. 
His election resulted in political revolution in California. CSee 
"Story of the California legislature of 1911" and "Story of the Cali- 
fornia Legislature of 1913.") He was one of the founders of the 
Progressive party at Chicago in 1912, and was that year candidate 
for Vice-President with Poosevelt on the National Progressive 
ticket. In 1914 he was re-elected Governor of California with over- 
whelming vote. Johnson is the first Governor since 1853 to secure 
re-election in California. 

144 See Heney's affidavit in The People vs. Ruef, No. 823. 

145 "Again we protest," said Johnson when the final break came, 
"in behalf of the District Attorney of this city and county, and in 
the name of the people of California. We do not believe in this; 
we will not participate in it; and we take our leave of this court. 
We will not 'participate in any proceeding which does not, accord- 
ing to our ideas, comport with the dignity of justice, the dignity 
of this court, or our own dignity." 



132 Ruef a Fugitive 

The withdrawal of the District Attorney and his 
assistants did not delay Judge Hebbard's decision. He 
denied the writ Ruef prayed for, but he allowed an 
appeal from his order to the Supreme Court of the 
United States, and admitted Ruef to bail pending that 
appeal. 

One of Ruef's attorneys filed the writ of error issued 
by Judge Hebbard with the clerk of the Federal Circuit 
Court. May 2 was set as the date for the appearance 
on the writ of error before the United States Supreme 
Court at Washington. 146 

The Aetna Indemnity Company had furnished Ruef's 
bond. This company surrendered Ruef to the Sheriff in 
the forenoon. In the afternoon it furnished the bail that 
had been imposed by Judge Hebbard. 

Ruef, in Hebbard's order granting him opportunity 
to take his case to the Federal Courts, had basis for fur- 
ther struggle in the courts to evade trial. But he under- 
took a new move. After leaving Hebbard's courtroom 
on the afternoon of March 4, Ruef dropped out of sight 
as completely as though the earth had opened and 
swallowed him. 

For three days the regular peace officers of San 
Francisco searched San Francisco for him but they did 
not find him. 



]46 On March 25, 1907, Ruef's appeal in the habeas corpus mat- 
ter was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Of 
this move. Frank J. Murphy, one of Ruef's attorneys, is quoted in 
a published interview: "We have instructed our representative in 
n^ton to withdraw the writ of error filed by us. This de- 
rision was reached on account of the decision of the State Supreme 
Court to the effect that the participation of an incompetent juror 
does not affect the validity of an indictment." 

This action left the Prosecution free to proceed with Ruef's trial 
without any possibility of the proceedings being questioned later. 



Ruef a Fugitive 133 

When Ruef's case was called for trial in Judge 
Dunne's department on the morning following the pro- 
ceedings in Judge Hebbard's court, Ruef's attorney, 
Samuel M. Shortridge, was present, but not the de- 
fendant. 

Shortridge was in the position of an attorney in 
court without a client. 147 After a wait of four hours, to 
give Ruef every opportunity to make his appearance, 
Heney moved that the bonds of the absent defendant be 
declared forfeited, specifying the bonds originally given 



147 Judge Dunne ruled that Ruef, being a fugitive from justice, 
and his trial one for felony, at which the defendant must be present 
at every stage of the proceedings, there was no trial before the 
court. Shortridge was in the position of counsel without a client. 
During the examination of Coroner Walsh, after his failure to find 
Ruef, Shortridge insisted upon interrupting the examination. Judge 
Dunne after repeated warnings, found Shortridge guilty of con- 
tempt of court, and sentenced him to serve twenty-four hours in 
jail. The Chronicle of March 9, 1907, contains the following ac- 
count of the incident: 

"Have you not said," Walsh was asked by Heney, "that you 
hoped he (Ruef) would be acquitted and that you would do all you 
could for him? Are you not in sympathy with him?" 

Again the Coroner quibbled and Judge Dunne ordered: "Answer 
the question. Do you sympathize with him or not?" 

Still the witness hesitated, and again the Judge asked with 
vigor: "Are you in sympathy with him?" 

"If he is innocent I am in sympathy with him, if he is guilty 
I am not." 

"I suppose you wish it to appear that you are not in sympathy 
with him so that you may take charge of the jury," suggested 
Heney. 

Samuel M. Shortridge, one of Ruef's lawyers, here said that he 
objected on behalf of his client to the line of examination. 

Heney proceeded without paying any attention to Shortridge's 
interruption. Shortridge again entered an objection, and Judge 
Dunne ordered him to take his seat. 

"But I wish to be heard on behalf of my client," persisted Short- 
ridge. 

"Take your seat, Mr. Shortridge, or I will order the Sheriff to 
cause you to do so or remove you from the court room," declared 
Judge Dunne. 

"Am I to understand that I am not to be heard in this court?" 
demanded Shortridge with play of great indignation. 

"Mr. Shortridge, your conduct is boisterous and offensive and 
tends to interfere with the orderly conduct of the court. I declare 
you guilty of contempt and sentence you to be confined in the 
County Jail for twenty-four hours. Mr. Sheriff, take him into 
custody." 



134 Ruef a Fugitive 

as well as those furnished in the proceedings before 
Hebbard. 

Judge Dunne, in ruling upon Heney's motion, stated 
that he was proceeding as though the proceedings be- 
fore Judge Hebbard had not occurred. Those proceed- 
ings, he announced, he felt were under a species of 
fraud. He ordered Ruef's original bonds forfeited and 
took the question of the forfeiture of the bonds in the 
proceedings before Judge Hebbard under advisement. 
He considered it his duty, he said, to proceed with the 
trial of the case until ordered to desist by the Supreme 
Court or by the Court of Appeals. 

Attorney Shortridge announced to Judge Dunne that 
in proceeding with the hearing he might find himself in 
contempt of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
Judge Dunne stated that that would not embarrass 
him, and in any event, he would not proceed with the 
matter until the defendant was in court. 

The day passed without the defendant's whereabouts 
being discovered. Sheriff O'Neil reported that he had 
been unable to find the fugitive, but expressed his belief 
that he would be able to do so eventually. With that 
understanding court adjourned for the day. 

The day following, Ruef's attorneys appealed to the 
State Appellate Court 148 for a writ of prohibition to pre- 
vent Judge Dunne and others from further proceeding 
against Ruef in the extortion cases, and to show cause 

148 The two principal points on which the defense based their 
applications for writs of habeas corpus and of prohibition were: 

(1) That Juror Wise, having sat on a petty jury within a year, 
was disqualified to act as a Grand Juror, and hence the indictments 
were fatally defective. 

(2) That the matter was before the Supreme Court of the 
United States on a writ of error. 



Ruef a Fugitive 135 

why the writ should not be made permanent. Ruef being 
in hiding, the application was not signed by the peti- 
tioner. The Appellate Court, after twenty-four hours, 
denied the petition. Ruef's representatives then went 
before the State Supreme Court with the same repre- 
sentations. And here, again, eventually, Ruef lost. 

In the meantime, Ruef had not been found. The day 
following his disappearance, Judge Dunne disqualified 
the Sheriff and named the next officer in authoritative 
sequence in such matters, the Coroner, W. J. Walsh, as 
elisor, to arrest Ruef and bring him into court. 

Coroner Walsh had no better success than had Sheriff 
O'Neil. Ruef had disappeared on the night of Monday, 
March 4. On Friday, March 8, after three days of 
unavailing search by O'Neil and Walsh, 149 Judge Dunne 
disqualified Walsh and appointed William J. Biggy 1S0 
as elisor to arrest the fugitive. 

Within two hours Biggy, accompanied by Detective 
William J. Burns, had located Ruef at a road-house in 
the San Francisco suburbs and had placed him under 
arrest. 151 



149 Heney, in his affidavit in contention that an Elisor should 
be appointed to bring Ruef into court, indicated the conditions 
which were handicapping the prosecution. 

150 Biggy afterwards became Chief of Police of San Francisco. 

151 Ruef was with one of his henchmen, Myrtile Cerf, when ar- 
rested. Long after, when he had plead guilty to one of the extor- 
tion charges, Ruef stated in an interview published in the San 
Francisco Call, May 16 3 1907, that it had been his purpose "to wait 
until the Legislature had acted on the Change of Venue Bill," which 
was considered in a previous chapter, and which at the time of 
Ruef's flight was being engineered through the Senate by George 
Keane in his capacity as Senator. Ruef, in his interview, stated 
further: "We had expected that this bill v/ould go through. Nat- 
urally we were surprised when we learned that Campbell, the May- 
or's (Schmitz's) attorney, was at Sacramento lobbying against the 
bill. What his object was I do not know. He even went to George 



136 Ruef a Fugitive 

Having taken his man, 152 the elisor was at a loss to 
know what to do with him. To put him in the city 
prison was to turn him over to the police; to put him 
in the county jail was to turn him over to the Sheriff. 
The Chief of Police was even then under indictment with 
Ruef, a co-defendant; the Sheriff had been disqualified. 
The only alternative was for Biggy himself to hold Ruef 
until the court could act. Biggy accordingly secured 
suitable quarters at the Hotel St. Francis, and there held 
Ruef a prisoner until the following Monday, when he 
was taken before Judge Dunne. 

Judge Dunne refused to admit Ruef to bail, re- 
manded him to Elisor Biggy's custody, and continued his 
trial until the following morning, Tuesday, March 12. 

Ruef immediately made application to the Supreme 
Court for a writ of habeas corpus, asking to be released 
from the custody of Elisor Biggy and placed in charge 
of the Sheriff. But here again Ruef was defeated. 
Elisor Biggy continued his keeper for many months fol- 
lowing. 

Ruef, after his appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, 
had exhausted every legal device known to himself and 
his attorneys to escape trial in the extortion case pending 



Keane, who had charge of the bill, and tried to switch him to the 
other side." 

During the period of Ruef's disappearance, his attorneys had in- 
sisted that they were unaware of his whereabouts. Myrtile Cerf, 
his companion in flight, refused to say before the Grand Jury with 
whom he had telephonic communication while at the roadhouse, on 
the ground that such testimony might incriminate him. 

152 Ruef's arrest threw the administration into the greatest con- 
fusion. Supervisor Wilson testified at the trial of The People vs. 
Ruef, No. 1437, Part 3, Vol. 7, p. 3175, that at 2 o'clock of the morn- 
ing following Ruef's capture, he went down to Henry Ach's apart- 
ment to ascertain if the rumor that Ruef had been found were 
true. 



Ruef a Fugitive 137 

before Judge Dunne. 153 His last recourse gone, Ruef 
found himself brought face to face with trial before a 
jury. On March 13 the selecting of jurors to try Ruef 
began in Judge Dunne's court. 

But events of far greater moment than petty extortion 
had the attention of San Francisco. Even as Ruef was 
in hiding, Detective Burns and his assistants had trapped 
three members of the Board of Supervisors in bribery. 
This opened up the most fruitful field of the graft 



153 Of the procedure which made possible Ruef s long technical 
fight to escape trial, the San Francisco Chronicle on November 10, 
1906, said: 

"The disgraceful condition of our criminal laws permits guilty 
men to put off their doom almost without limit. Where money 
makes unscrupulous talent available that course is invariably taken 
by those caught in the toils of justice. There are many objects 
to be gained by these delays. Witnesses may die or be spirited 
away. Most important of all the public becomes wearied and 
finally forgets or loses its zest for the enforcement of the law. 
When that stage is reached the 'pull' comes into play. By the 
connivance of the District Attorney, and especially of the Judge, 
continuance after continuance can be granted until proof becomes 
impossible and the case is dismissed. The adoption of such a course 
by any accused person of bad reputation is moral evidence of guilt 
which is conclusive with the public. We have had in this city 
many disgraceful criminal trials. We have had many obvious mis- 
carriages of justice. There have been wealthy men whom every- 
body feels should be in the penitentiary who have hardly ceased 
for a day to flaunt their faces in decent society. We have never 
had a case in which the obstruction to the cause of justice began 
so early as Ruef began it, or was conducted with such brazen ef- 
frontery. It is not within our recollection that any accused person 
of whose guilt there was reasonable doubt had adopted such a 
course. Its adoption is the recognized sign of guilt. 

"But while our laws affecting court practice are very bad, they 
do afford the means of ultimately bringing criminals to trial and 
convicting them if the evidence is sufficient and the jury unbiased 
and uncorrupted. It only requires that the public maintains its in- 
terest and thereby sustains its officials in their efforts to secure 
justice. In this case the advantage is with the public. There is 
no possibility of a 'pull' with the District Attorney. His assistant, 
Mr. Heney, is himself a master of the criminal law and in notable 
cases elsewhere has triumphed over similar efforts for delay made 
in behalf of criminals of far higher social and political standing 
than Ruef. In fact Ruef has no standing of any kind in the com- 
munity in any way different from that possessed by other political 
bosses supposed to be corrupt. The indignation of this community 
is a righteous indignation and it will never abate until under the 
due processes of law the truth in respect to Ruef and his rousta- 
bouts is dragged out in open court." 



138 Ruef a Fugitive 

prosecution, and immediately the extortion cases became 
of comparative unimportance. The trapping of the 
three Supervisors led to confessions from fourteen oth- 
ers, which involved not only Ruef in enormous bribery 
transactions, but also prominent members of the bar, 
and leaders in the social, financial and industrial life of 
California. 



CHAPTER XII. 

Trapping of the Supervisors. 

Months before the Oliver Grand Jury was convened, 
it was common gossip in San Francisco that the members 
of the Board of Supervisors were taking money from 
the public service corporations. 154 Belief of this had got 
beyond the stage of mere newspaper accusation. It had 
become the firmly-settled conviction of the law-abiding 
element of the community. For this reason, as the 



154 At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Supervisor 
Andrew M. Wilson testified to a conversation which he had had 
with Ruef at Ruef's office early in September, 1906. He was asked 
to state what he had said to Ruef on that occasion. Wilson re- 
plied: 

"A. I told him Mr. Choynski was across the street; I pulled the 
blind aside at his office, and showed him Mr. Choynski talking- to 
Jesse Marks; that he had stated to Marks the exact amount on the 
trolley proposition. 

"Mr. Sullivan: Q. Who had stated to Marks the exact amount 
on the trolley proposition? A. Mr. Choynski, and that I had ad- 
vised him a few weeks before that not to continue that fight for 
the attorneyship of the Liquor Dealers. 

"Q. Advised who? A. Mr. Ruef; and that Mr. Choynski was 
telling him what he had said to McGushin at one of the meetings 
regarding the $4,000 on the trolley. 

"Q. That who had said what he had told Mr. McGushin? A. 
Tes, sir. 

"Q. That who had said it? A. That Mr. Choynski had said 
that McGushin looked pararyzed when he mentioned the exact 
amount, but denied it; and I says to Mr. Ruef, 'He has the cor- 
rect amount on the trolley,' and he stated that there must be a 
leak somewhere in the Board; and I told him I thought 

"Q. (Interrupting). Who stated that there must be a leak 
somewhere in the Board? A. Mr. Ruef; and I stated that I thought 
it came through Morris Levy, and that possibly he got his infor- 
mation through Supervisor Kelly, as they were very friendly. 

"Mr. Ach: Q. Who said that, you or Ruef? 

"Mr. Sullivan: Q. Who said that? A. I stated that to Mr. 
Ruef, that I thought the source of the leak was through Super- 
visor Kelly telling Morris Levy, and Morris Levy telling Choynski." 
— See Transcript, page 2643. 



140 Trapping of the Supervisors 

months wore away in technical wrangling in the 
"French Restaurant" extortion cases, the public became 
impatient that time and energy should be expended in 
comparatively unimportant matters, while big graft went 
unprobed. 

Partisans of the administration took advantage of this 
sentiment to belittle the prosecution. 

Under this sort of hammering, the prosecution, dur- 
ing the months of February and March, 1907, unques- 
tionably lost ground in public opinion. 

But with Ruef holding the Supervisors to rigid ac- 
counting, and agents of public-service corporations lynx- 
eyed 155 to detect any weakness in their position, and 
quick to report with warning and advice to Ruef at any 
suggestion of danger, Burns and his associates were able 
to make little headway in securing evidence of big graft 
that would justify indictment or warrant trial. 

The Supervisors looked to Ruef absolutely. Some of 
them took bribe money from others than himself in spite 
of his warning, but when they scented a trap they hur- 
ried to Ruef for advice. 

When he directed them to return the bribe money 



155 Supervisor James L. Gallagher testified at the trial of The 
People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, of a note which had been delivered to 
him by Mr. Abbott, attorney for the United Railroads, from Tirey 
L. Ford, head of the United Railroads law department, to be de- 
livered to Ruef. The substance of the note, Gallagher testified, 
was that "The Grand Jury is taking up the investigation of the 
charges concerning the United Railroads permit; not much headway 
has been made; it is intended to endeavor to trap some of the Su- 
pervisors." 

Gallagher, unable to find Ruef, went back to Ford, according 
to Gallagher's testimony, and asked if the note were so important 
that Ruef should be hunted up. Ford had directed him to open the 
envelope and read the note. Gallagher did this, made a short- 
hand memorandum of it. and read the message to Ruef later. See 
transcript, The People vs. Ruef, Part 3, Vol. 2, pp. 976 to 983. 



Trapping of the Supervisors 141 

they promised to do so, and in some cases actually re- 
turned it. 

Ruef was a competent captain over men who had all 
confidence in his ability to keep them out of trouble. So 
long as he was in touch with the Supervisors his posi- 
tion so far as the Supervisors was concerned was al- 
most impregnable. When, however, Ruef was caught 
in a position where he could no longer consult freely 
with his men, advise them and reassure them, his or- 
ganization went to pieces in a wild scramble of every 
member thereof to save himself. 

This occurred when Ruef was placed in the custody 
of Elisor Biggy. 

Ruef fully appreciated this weak point in his posi- 
tion. He realized from the beginning of the Graft 
Prosecution the danger of members of the Board of 
Supervisors being trapped in independent bribery, and 
himself becoming involved through their confessions. 
Even before his flight from trial in the extortion case, 
he knew that his fears bade fair to be realized. 

Some fortnight before Ruef s flight, Supervisor Lon- 
ergan had been to Ruef with confession of having taken 
$500 from Golden M. Roy. Roy was proprietor of a Veil- 
known cafe and was counted by men in Lonergan's 
position as one of the supporters of the administration. 
But the more astute Ruef at once suspected betrayal. 
Ruef bluntly informed Lonergan that he had been 
trapped, directed him to return the money Roy had given 
him and warned him of the risk he ran in accepting 
bribes. 

Ruef s fears were well founded. Roy, in his dealings 



142 Trapping of the Supervisors 

with Lonergan, was acting for Detective William J. 
Burns. 

The trap which Burns had prepared for the eager 
Lonergan was plausibly baited. 

Roy was a restaurant keeper with several side enter- 
prises, among them interests in a skating-rink. An ordi- 
nance regulating skating-rinks was pending before the 
Supervisors. Roy, acting under direction of the District 
Attorney, approached Lonergan with a statement that he 
wished the ordinance defeated. Lonergan accordingly 
met Roy at the skating-rink office. In an adjoining 
room, placed so they could see and hear, were Detective 
William J. Burns and two others. From their places of 
concealment the three men heard the bargain, and saw 
Roy pay Lonergan $500 to defeat the skating-rink ordi- 
nance. 

Roy, acting for the District Attorney, then attempted 
to trap Gallagher. He offered Gallagher $1000 for his 
work on the skating-rink ordinance. Gallagher refused 
to take any money and said that Roy was a friend of 
the administration and it should not cost him anything. 
Roy urged Gallagher to accept the money, alleging that 
it came from a pool; that Gallagher was entitled to it; 
that he, Roy, had given money to several Supervisors 
already. Gallagher asked him to tell which ones. Roy 
refused, saying, "You would not expect me to tell on 
you." 

Gallagher immediately suspected Lonergan and told 
his suspicions to Wilson, and the two hunted up Loner- 
gan and charged him with getting the money. 

Gallagher hurried Lonergan to Ruef much the same 



Trapping of the Supervisors 143 

as they would have rushed a man showing the symp- 
toms of a deadly malady to a physician. Ruef warned 
him and advised him. The thoroughly frightened Su- 
pervisor assured Ruef that he would be careful in the 
future, and that he would return the money he had 
received from Roy. 186 

But even as Ruef was dealing with Lonergan, Super- 
visor Edward I. Walsh was walking into a trap set in 
duplication of that into which Lonergan had fallen. 

Walsh, at the skating-rink, with the eyes of Bums 
and others upon him, accepted $500 from Roy — who 
was working as before under direction of the District 
Attorney — as the price of his vote on the skating-rink 
ordinance. 

The third Supervisor to fall into the District Attor- 
ney's trap was Dr. Charles Boxton. 

Dr. Boxton 167 was a different type from Lonergan 
and Walsh. He had had the advantage of superior 
education and training. A specially prepared trap was 
set for him at Roy's house. Boxton was introduced into 
the front room separated from the dining-room by fold- 
ing doors. The dining-room had been darkened, and 
the folding doors left slightly ajar. Burns, with his 
assistants, was concealed in the dining-room, where they 

156 An interesting incident of this transaction grew out of word 
being carried to Roy, that Ruef had told Lonergan that Roy was a 
stool pigeon for Burns. Roy went to Ruef's office with a show of 
great indignation, demanding to know what Ruef meant by such 
a charge. Ruef apologized and denied. 

157 Boxton is thus described by Ruef, in his account of the graft 
cases: "Dr. Boxton was a dentist; he held the position of dean and 
professor of dentistry in an established medical and dental college. 
He was a popular man about town; had been one of the grand of- 
ficers of the Native Sons' organization; an officer of the First Cali- 
fornia Regiment in the Philippines, and had been several times 
elected Supervisor by large and popular votes." 



144 Trapping of the Supervisors 

could see all that took place in the front room, as well 
as hear what was said. They saw Roy offer Boxton 
the money; heard him tell Boxton that the ordinance 
was to be defeated ; saw Boxton take the money. 

The trap was to be sprung once more, with Loner- 
gan, for the second time, 158 the victim. 

Lonergan, instead of returning the $500 he had ac- 
cepted in the skating-rink transaction, as he had prom- 
ised Ruef he would do, accepted an additional $500 from 
Roy. As before, Burns and his men witnessed the 
transaction. 

Roy had told Lonergan of an ordinance authorizing 
the establishing of an oil refinery in which Roy claimed 
to be interested. He promised Lonergan $500 to sup- 
port the measure. The ordinance had been cleverly 
prepared, with an acrostic in the title, spelling the word 
''Fake." 139 Roy had interested Boxton in the measure 
as well as Lonergan. Boxton had introduced it at a 
regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. On March 
7, while Ruef was a fugitive, Lonergan went to Roy's 
house to get the money to be paid him for the support 
of the "Fake" ordinance. 



158 The reason for springing the trap on Lonergan the second 
time was that the plan of Burns's had miscarried on the first trap. 
Burns had put a man in partnership with Lonergan, who was to 
induce Lonergan to cash a draft for $200, shortly after Lonergan 
had received the $500 in marked currency. 

When Lonergan was asked to cash the draft, he said all right, 
but that he would have to go home and get the money. He went 
home and brought back gold. About this time the Chronicle pub- 
lished a story to th3 effect that several Supervisors had been 
trapped. 

159 The acrostic was made by skipping two lines to the third, 
the first word of which began with "F," then skipping two lines 
to the sixth, skipping two lines to the ninth, and finally skipping 
two lines to the twelfth; the first letter of the first word of each 
of these lines spelt the word "Fake." 



Trapping of the Supervisors 145 

The same arrangements had been made for Lonergan 
as for Boxton. Burns and his men were concealed in 
the darkened dining-room; the folding doors were ajar. 
Lonergan took the money. 

"What," he demanded of Roy, "have you in the next 
room?" and advanced toward the partially-open folding 
doors. At that Burns threw the doors open. 

"You see," said Burns, "what he has in there." 

"I want you to arrest this man," cried Lonergan, in- 
dicating Roy. "He bribed a Supervisor." 

"Yes, I saw him do it," replied Burns. "But you 
did not tell me to arrest him when he bribed you down 
at the skating-rink." 

Lonergan at first denied the skating-rink incident, but 
finally admitted it. Langdon and Heney were sent for, 
and joined the party at Roy's house. Lonergan was 
urged to tell what he knew of graft of the Schmitz-Ruef 
administration. He finally consented. It was not a 
long story. Supervisor James L. Gallagher had acted 
as go-between, Lonergan stated, from Ruef to the Su- 
pervisors. From Gallagher, Lonergan testified, he had 
received $475 to influence his vote in the ordinance 
granting permits to the organized prize fight promoters 
to hold fights once a month; $750 to influence his vote 
in fixing gas rates at 85 cents per thousand instead of 
75 cents, as had been pledged in the Union Labor party 
platform on which he had been elected; $3500 in the 
matter of granting the Home Telephone Company's 
franchise; $4000 for his vote in granting the United 
Railroads its permit to establish the overhead trolley 
system. Lonergan stated further that Gallagher had 



146 Trapping of the Supervisors 

promised him $750, and later $1000, to influence his vote 
in the matter of passing an ordinance for the sale of a 
franchise applied for by the Parkside Realty Company, 
with the "biggest thing yet" to come, when the deal 
was consummated, by which the city would accept the 
plans of the Bay Cities Water Company. 

In addition to the sums received from Gallagher, 
Lonergan confessed to receiving $5000 from T. V. Hal- 
sey, representing the Pacific States Telephone and Tele- 
graph Company. Halsey had paid Lonergan the money, 
the Supervisor said, to oppose the granting of a fran- 
chise to the Home Telephone Company. 

Walsh and Boxton were sent for. On their arrival 
at Roy's house they were closely questioned, and urged 
to confess, but neither would make a statement that 
night. Boxton insisted that he would admit nothing 
unless the other Supervisors made statements. But on 
the following day, March 8, Walsh made a statement 
under oath to the District Attorney and Heney, in which 
he confessed to receiving bribes from Gallagher, except 
in the Home Telephone bribery, in the same amount 
and under like conditions that Lonergan had stated 
bribes had been paid him. 

Startling as these confessions were, they as a matter 
of fact involved none but Lonergan, Walsh, Gallagher 
and Halsey. At no point did they touch Ruef, or 
Schmitz, or those who had furnished the bribe money. 
Boxton with Walsh and Lonergan had been trapped in 
bribery. Two had confessed to receiving money from 
Gallagher, but even though the third, Boxton, added 
his confession to theirs, it would not have provided 
sufficient to convict. The confessions of the three were 



Trapping of the Supervisors 147 

uncorroborated as to each bribe. The remaining fifteen 
Supervisors would to a certainty have sworn they voted 
for the several measures without inducement. With such 
testimony from the fifteen, no motive could have been 
shown for Gallagher to bribe Lonergan, Walsh and Box- 
ton ; the measures could, with the votes of the fifteen, 
have been passed without the votes of the three Super- 
visors trapped. To make out even a fairly good case 
against Ruef, it was absolutely essential to have Gal- 
lagher's testimony, and in addition thereto, the testimony 
of a majority of the members of the Board of Super- 
visors. 160 

The prosecution had made progress in trapping the 
three Supervisors, and in getting confession out of two 
of them. But at best it was only an opening wedge. 
The least slip would have lost all the ground gained. 
The three trapped Supervisors might be sent to State 
Prison. Had they been, Schmitz with the fifteen Super- 
visors remaining would have filled their places by ap- 
pointment. The situation would then be more difficult 
for the prosecution than ever. 

While the agents of the District Attorney were deal- 
ing with the complicated problems which the first break 
in the line of the graft defense brought upon them, Ruef 



160 With the testimony of all the Supervisors, including Gallagher, 
the prosecution subsequently found great difficulty in convicting 
Ruef. In the Parkside case, all the Supervisors testified in regard 
to two promises made to them, and all the officials of the Parkside 
Company testified to negotiations with Ruef and to the payment of 
money to him. In addition thereto, William J. Dingee, who was an 
entirely disinterested party, testified to a conversation with Ruef, 
which was highly incriminating in its character, and which 
amounted to an admission on the part of Ruef that he was receiv- 
ing money in the Parkside matter. 

With all this evidence before it, the jury stood six for acquittal 
and six for conviction. 



148 Trapping of the Supervisors 

continued a fugitive. Gallagher, Ruef's immediate repre- 
sentative, realized the seriousness of the situation. He 
had no real loyalty for Ruef. His one thought was for 
Gallagher. He could for the moment see no hope for 
himself, except in the defeat of the prosecution. He 
accordingly exerted himself to block Burns, and to pre- 
vent the conditions of graft in the Board of Supervisors 
from becoming public. 161 Supervisor Wilson was as- 
sisting him. As encouragement, the anxious Ruef had 
sent Gallagher word by his sister to remain firm. But 
the leader was gone; Ruef's grip was loosened. From 
Gallagher down to the wretched Lonergan, the Super- 
visors were thinking of saving themselves alone. . 

Ruef's word, sent by his sister to Gallagher, was for 
Gallagher "to sit on the lid." Gallagher soon after ob- 
served to Wilson that "the lid was getting a little 
warm" ; that he thought he would get in touch with the 
prosecution to see what could be done with the other 



161 Wilson testified at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, 
of the anxiety of the Supervisors during- this period. Although Wil- 
son had resigned from the board to accept the office of State Rail- 
road Commissioner to which he had been elected, he went to a con- 
ference of the Supervisors to decide what should be done. The fol- 
lowing is from Wilson's testimony: 

"Q. You were not then a Supervisor, were you? A. No, sir. 

"Q. Who told you to go there? A. I was helping Mr. Gallagher. 

"Q. Helping Gallagher do what? Don't you know? A. Sit on 
the lid, that is what we called it. 

"Q. Helping Gallagher sit on the lid? A. Yes, sir. 

"Q. What does 'sitting on the lid' mean? That is a bit of the 
vernacular that I am not acquainted with. 

"Mr. Dwyer: That is vernacular authorized by the President- 
elect of the United States, I suppose it is good English? 

"Mr. Ach: Well, he is a big man; I suppose he might sit on 
something that might be a lid. The Court: Finish your answer. 

"Mr. Ach: Q. What do you mean? A. Trying to keep the 
facts of the condition of the Board of Supervisors from becoming 
public. 

"Q. What do you mean by that? A. The condition of the 
Board, the graft matters." 



Trapping of the Supervisors 149 

side. Wilson assured Gallagher that he considered such 
a move would be a wise one. 

Gallagher's first definite word that as many as three 
Supervisors had been trapped reached him through Dr. 
Boxton's attorney, H. M. Owens. Owens told Gallagher 
that Boxton had made full statement of the situation to 
him and that he was convinced, and so was Boxton, that 
if Boxton went to trial he would be convicted. 

The effect of this information upon Gallagher can 
be appreciated when it is realized that Gallagher, acting 
as Ruef's go-between, had himself paid Boxton money. 
Owens stated further that the question of giving the 
Supervisors immunity, provided they made complete con- 
fession, had been broached, and the suggestion had been 
made that Gallagher meet some member of the prosecu- 
tion to discuss this point. The names of Langdon and 
Burns were suggested, but Gallagher did not care to 
meet them. He finally agreed, however, to an appoint- 
ment with Rudolph Spreckels. 

Before the meeting between Gallagher and Spreckels 
took place, Langdon, Heney, Spreckels and Burns had a 
conference. It was suggested that Spreckels might in- 
dicate to Gallagher that the prosecution would like to 
have his confession and statement, and that the District 
Attorney would unquestionably be able to extend to him 
immunity 162 on the strength of his giving full and free, 



. 162 At the trial of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436, 
Spreckels testified to his own attitude on the question of immunity. 
He said: "I would be willing to grant immunity to any man who 
would bring to bar a man of great wealth who would debauch a 
city government, and who would use his wealth to corrupt indi- 
viduals and tempt men of no means to commit a crime in order 
that he might make more money." — See transcript of testimony, 
page 3326. 



150 Trapping of the Supervisors 

truthful testimony concerning crimes in which he was 
involved while acting as a Supervisor in connection with 
the public service corporations and others. 

Three meetings were held between Spreckels and 
Gallagher before the matter was concluded. The meet- 
ing-place was in the grounds of the Presidio, the military 
reservation at San Francisco. 

The first of the three meetings was preliminary only. 
Spreckels explained to Gallagher the aims and purposes 
of the prosecution. 163 Gallagher would make no admis- 
sions, and indicated that under no circumstances would 
he consider the District Attorney's immunity proposition 
unless all the Supervisors were included within its pro- 
visions. 

After this preliminary meeting, Spreckels conferred 
with Langdon and Heney. It was agreed that Galla- 
gher's testimony was essential. He was, indeed, the 

163 At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Gallagher testi- 
fied that Spreckels told him in substance as follows: 

"Mr. Spreckels then stated that he was not actuated by vindic- 
tiveness in the matter, that he did not wish to make any more 
trouble or cause any more distress than was necessary in carrying 
out what he had undertaken, and that his purpose was to endeavor 
to stop the unlawful transactions, — dealings of corporations and 
large interests in this city with public officials; that his reason, that 
his view of the matter was that in order to accomplish that, that 
it would be necessary, or that he did not desire unnecessarily to 
injure anyone, and that the members of the Board of Supervisors 
and those who were engaged with them in the matter, outside of 
those who represented the corporations and big interests, were not 
as important from his standpoint as those who had, as those in 
control of those interests, because the members of the — the public 
officials and political bosses would come and go, but that the cor- 
porations and big interests remained; that they were, as he thought, 
the source of the trouble, and therefore, he did not consider it im- 
portant, or so important, to punish the officials as to reach those 
that were in his judgment primarily responsible for the conditions, 
that he felt that the District Attorney would grant immunity to the 
members of the Board of Supervisors if they would tell the whole 
truth of their transactions with the corporations and other persons, 
large interests, that had had any dealings with them of an unlaw- 
ful character. I think I then said to him I would consider the mat- 
ter and would talk with the members of the Board of Supervisors 
about it." 



Trapping of the Supervisors 151 

pivotal witness. The confessions of Lonergan, Boxton 
and Walsh showed that he had carried the bribe money 
from Ruef to the Supervisors. Furthermore, the testi- 
mony of a majority of the Supervisors would be neces- 
sary. Under the circumstances it was decided that im- 
munity could very properly be extended to all the Super- 
visors. 

This decision Spreckels took back to Gallagher. Gal- 
lagher called his leaderless associates together. 

By this time it was generally known among the Su- 
pervisors that Lonergan, Walsh and Boxton had been 
trapped, that at least two of them had made statements 
to the prosecution. Furthermore, there were rumors 
that other members had been to the prosecution and 
made confessions. 

Gallagher explained the seriousness of the situa- 
tion. 16 * He explained to them the immunity proposition 
which the prosecution had made, and stated that the 
matter rested in their hands. He said that he was will- 



164 Gallagher at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, made 
the following - statement of what he said to the Supervisors: 

"My best recollection of the statement is that I said to them 
that some of the members of the Board of Supervisors had been 
trapped in accepting money on some matters before the Board, and 
that they had made statements to the prosecution, as I understood, 
or were about to do so, and that I had seen Mr. Spreckels and 
talked with him concerning the other members of the Board of 
Supervisors, and that Mr. Spreckels had stated to me that the pur- 
pose was not to prosecute the members of the Board of Supervisors 
provided they would make statements, full and true statements, of 
their relations in the transactions with the quasi-public corporations 
and large interests in the city that they may have had unlawful 
dealings with; that Mr. Spreckels had stated that the public officials 
were coming and going, and that the political bosses were coming 
and going; his object was to reach the source of the condition that 
he was trying to eradicate; that the corporations and these other 
interests remained all the time, and that he felt that they were the 
ones that should be the object of his efforts at eradicating that 
condition in the city. Mr. Spreckels stated that he was not actuated 
by vindictiveness in the matter; in other words, Mr. Ach, as nearly 
as I could, I repeated the statements of Mr. Spreckels to me." 

See Transcript on Appeal, page 1471. 



1 52 Trapping of the Supervisors 

ing to sacrifice himself, if necessary, but that the whole 
matter was with them to decide. 

Wilson and Boxton urged that the terms offered by 
the prosecution be accepted. 165 

The Supervisors present were at first divided. Some 
of them announced that they would take the attitude of 
denying all graft. 

"Very well," replied Gallagher, "any one who wants 
to take that attitude will be excused from further dis- 
cussion." 

But none of the troubled officials left the room. 

Boxton stated that he would involve Gallagher in a 
statement, and that Gallagher would have to testify to 
all the money transactions he had had with the board. 
The Supervisors knew, even then, that Gallagher had 
already been involved by the confessions of Walsh and 
Lonergan. Under the urging of Gallagher, Wilson and 
Boxton, they finally decided to make confession. 

Ruef was not present at that last secret caucus of the 
Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors. 

Gallagher took back word to Spreckels that he had 
communicated to the Supervisors the message which 
Spreckels had delivered to him from the District Attor- 
ney, to the effect that immunity would be granted to 
the Supervisors, provided they would make sworn dec- 



165 "I told them," said Wilson in his testimony in the case of 
The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, "that I had always taken orders 
from Mr. Ruef, that I looked upon him as the political captain of 
the ship, that I had followed out his orders; that I did not feel that 
I should sacrifice myself, or ask Mr. Gallagher to sacrifice himself 
through the condition that had been brought about; that I thought 
it would be unreasonable for any Supervisor to ask Mr. Gallagher 
to sacrifice himself, that some of the others might walk the streets 
and feel that they were honest men; that I did not feel he should 
be sacrificed alone in the matter." 



Trapping of the Supervisors 153 

laration of the crimes in which they were involved, giv- 
ing a truthful account of all matters. The Supervisors, 
Gallagher told Spreckels, had decided to accept the prop- 
osition, and would meet the District Attorney for the 
purpose of making their statements. 

Gallagher rather tardily asked immunity for Ruef, 
but Spreckels stated that he had not discussed this fea- 
ture with the District Attorney, and that Gallagher would 
himself have to take the matter up with the authorities 
directly. 

In considering this immunity arrangement with the 
bribed Supervisors, the fact should not be overlooked 
that during the five months which had passed since the 
opening of the graft prosecution, Spreckels and Heney 
had been meeting officials of the public service corpora- 
tions involved practically every day at luncheon. But 
the corporation officials would give no assistance in ex- 
posing the corruption which was undermining the com- 
munity. 166 

166 The public service corporation officials were encouraged by 
Spreckels and Heney to give information which would lead to the 
indictment and conviction of Ruef and Schmitz, and thus clean up 
the city. Instead of giving such information, they pretended that 
the rumors in regard to bribery were all baseless. 

At the Pacific Union Club, where they generally lunched, Spreck- 
els and Heney were the recipients of many kind words of encour- 
agement and of congratulation, up to the time that Ruef plead 
guilty in the French-restaurant case. Immediately thereafter the 
atmosphere commenced to change. The indictment of some of the 
prominent members of the club was not pleasing. During the first 
trial of Glass, he and his attorneys constantly lunched at the Pacific 
Union Club, and many men, prominent in finance, would stop and 
chat ostentatiously with Glass and his lawyers, and would then 
ignore Spreckels and Heney, who would be sitting at a near-by 
table. 

An attempt to keep Rudolph Spreckels out of membership in the 
Bohemian Club was almost successful about this time, while Drum 
was elected a director of the Pacific Union Club while still under 
indictment, and Thomas Williams, of the New California Jockey 
Club, one of the bondsmen for Schmitz, was elected President. 



CHAPTER XIII. 
Confessions of the Supervisors. 

The resignation of Supervisor DufTey to take charge 
of the municipal department of public works, and of Su- 
pervisor Wilson 167 to take the office of State Railroad 
Commissioner, left sixteen members of the elected 
Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors at the time of the 
exposures of the graft prosecution. The sixteen, after 
the surrender at their last secret caucus, made full con- 
fession of their participation in the gains of the organ- 
ized betrayal of the city. 

Supervisor Wilson added his confession to the six- 
teen. Thus, of the eighteen Union Labor party Super- 
visors elected in 1905, four years after the organization 
of that party, seventeen 168 confessed to taking money 
from large combinations of capital, the very interests 
which the party had been brought into being to oppose. 
The public service corporations, confronting a party or- 
ganized primarily to control municipal government to 

167 To the places thus vacated, Mayor Schmitz appointed O. A. 
Tveitmoe and J. J. O'Neil. Tveitmoe and O'Neil assumed their 
duties as Supervisors after the bribery transactions were completed. 
They did not become involved in the graft exposures, but served 
to the end of the terms for which they had been appointed. 

108 The eighteenth Supervisor, who made no confession, was 
Duffey. Duffey, according to Gallagher's confession, participated 
with the others in the graft distributions. In the hurry of the 
final arrangements for the confessions, however, Gallagher gained 
the impression that confession was not to be required of Duffey. 
Rather than give appearance of lack of good faith, the prosecu- 
tion decided to abide by the impression which Gallagher claimed he 
had formed. 



Confessions of the Supervisors 155 

the end that equitable conditions in San Francisco 
might be guaranteed those who labor, by the simple 
process of support before election and bribery after 
election, secured as strong a hold upon the community 
as their most complete success at the polls could have 
given. 

These large interests, approaching the new order 
with bribe-money, found politicians operating in the 
name of organized labor, ostensibly to promote the best 
interests of labor, to be not at all formidable. And when 
the exposure came, and the bribe-giving corporation 
magnates were placed on their defense, their most potent 
allies in the campaign which they carried on to keep out 
of the penitentiary, were found in the entrenched lead- 
ers of the Union-Labor party. 

The Supervisors' confessions corroborated the state- 
ments previously made by Lonergan, Walsh and Boxton. 

The bribery transactions to which the seventeen Su- 
pervisors confessed, came naturally under two heads: 

The first class included the briberies carried on 
through Ruef, who dealt directly with those who fur- 
nished the bribe money. Ruef employed Gallagher as 
agent to deal with the Supervisors. Thus Gallagher did 
not come in contact with those who furnished the money, 
while the Supervisors were removed still further from 
connection with them. Ruef, on his part, in passing the 
money, did not come into immediate contact with the 
Supervisors except in Gallagher's case. It was bribery 
reduced to a fine art. In this group of transactions were 
included the bribery of the Supervisors to grant to the 
United Railroads its trolley permit; to the Home Tele- 



156 Confessions of the Supervisors 

phone Company, its franchise; to the Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, an 85-cent gas rate ; to the prize fight 
combine, monopoly of the pugilistic contests in San Fran- 
cisco. In this class, too, is properly included the Park- 
side Transit Company, which had, at the time the ex- 
posure came, paid Ruef $15,000 to secure a street rail- 
road franchise, with a promise of $15,000 more when 
the franchise had been actually granted. The Su- 
pervisors received nothing in this transaction, but they 
had been told by Ruef's agent, Gallagher, there would 
be, first $750 each for them in the Parkside matter. 
Later on they were told the sum would be $1000 each. 

The second class of bribes included those which 
were paid directly to the Supervisors. They included 
the bribes paid by T. V. Halsey, agent of the Pacific 
States Telephone and Telegraph Company to a majority 
of the Supervisors to prevent their awarding the Home 
Telephone Company its franchise. Gallagher did not 
participate in these bribery transactions, and could only 
indirectly throw light upon them. But in the other cases 
Gallagher was the pivotal witness. He received the bribe 
money from Ruef, and, after taking out his share, he 
paid the balance to the other Supervisors. 

With a wealth of detail, Gallagher told how he had 
received the money, when and where, and went into the 
particulars of its distribution among his associates. He 
had received from Ruef in all, $169,350. 169 Of this, he 

169 This was the amount that Ruef turned over to the Super- 
visors. It represented a comparatively small part of what he re- 
ceived from the Public Service corporations. From the United Rail- 
roads alone, because of the granting of the trolley permit, he re- 
ceived $200,000. In addition he was drawing a regular fee of $1,000 
a month from the United Railroads. 

The Supervisors were not always satisfied with the amount Gal- 



Confessions of the Supervisors 157 

had retained $27,275 for himself; the balance, $142,075, 
he had divided among his associates on the board. 

This enormous corruption fund which Gallagher di- 
vided with the Supervisors had come from four sources. 
The so-called prize-fight trust had furnished $9,000 of it ; 
the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, $13,350; the 
Home Telephone Company, $62,000, and the United 
Railroads, $85,000. 

The first money that passed from Ruef to Gallagher 
and from Gallagher on to the Supervisors, the confes- 
sions showed, was for the prize-fight monopoly. This 
particular bribery seems to have been intended as a 
trying-out of the several members to ascertain which of 
them would take money in connection with the discharge 
of their duties as Supervisors. 

Every member of the board accepted the package of 
bills which Gallagher tendered him. Indeed, several of 
them displayed surprising alertness to secure all that was 
their due. Ruef, it became known among them, had 
given Gallagher $9000, which evenly divided, meant $500 
for each of the eighteen Supervisors. But Gallagher 
gave them only $475 each. An explanation was de- 



lagher gave them. There were times when they entertained the 
idea that Ruef had sent more than Gallagher gave. They accord- 
ingly delegated Supervisor Wilson to ascertain from Ruef whether 
all the money intended for them was reaching them. Ruef refused 
to discuss the matter with Wilson. Wilson, at the trial of The 
Peonle vs. Ruef, No. 1437, testified: 

"I told him (Ruef) that the Supervisors had asked me to call 
and see him; that they wanted other information to confirm Mr. 
Gallagher's reports to the "Board on these money matters. He said 
that he did not care to discuss that with anyone other than Mr. 
Gallagher; that it took up time and that whatever Mr. Gallagher 
did on the Board was with his full knowledge and consent; that the 
matters were being handled satisfactorily by Mr. Gallagher, and 
when anything arose, any other condition confronted him, he 
would look elsewhere for a leader, but he did not want to go in 
at that time and discuss those matters with anyone." 



158 Confessions of the Supervisors 

manded of him. He stated that he had taken out 5 per 
cent, as his commission. 

So strong was the dissatisfaction created by the hold- 
ing out of this 5 per cent, that Ruef arranged to pay- 
Gallagher a larger amount than the others received to 
compensate him, no doubt, for his extra services as 
bribe-carrier. 

The new arrangement for the compensation of Gal- 
lagher was followed when the Supervisors were paid 
after fixing gas rates at 85 cents per thousand cubic 
feet, instead of 75 cents, 170 the sum pledged in their 
party platform. 

One of the Supervisors, McGushin, refused to break 
his platform pledge, and held out for the 75-cent rate. 
In distributing the gas money, Gallagher paid nothing 
to McGushin. 171 

But to each of the remaining sixteen Supervisors, 
Gallagher confessed to giving $750. Following the new 
rule that he was to have extra compensation, Gallagher 
kept for himself $1350. 

At the time of the gas-rate bribery, Supervisor Rea 
was making it unpleasant for his associates. Mr. Rea 



170 About the time the 85-cent gas rate was fixed, one of the 
Pacific Gas and Electric Company's stations was burned. Ruef 
stated to Gallagher that the fire would be used as one of the rea- 
sons for fixing the 85-cent rate; that it would probably appeal to 
the public as an excuse for fixing the rate at 85 cents when the 
platform of the party had mentioned 75 cents. See Transcript, The 
People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, page 784. 

171 When McGushin refused to follow directions and give the 
Pacific Gas and Electric Company an 85-cent gas rate, Gallagher 
went to Ruef about it. At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 
1437, Gallagher testified: "I told him (Ruef) that McGushin was 
rather demurring at receiving the money, at taking the money, and 
that I had told Mr. McGushin that he had better go down and talk 
with Mr. Ruef. He (Ruef) said, "All right, if he comes around I 
will talk with him." 



Confessions of the Supervisors 159 

had accepted $475 prize-fight money from Gallagher, 
without, he testified before the Grand Jury, knowing 
what it was for. A few days later he told Schmitz of 
the matter. Schmitz contended that no such work was 
going on. Rea, when he received his $750 in the gas- 
rate case, went to Schmitz with a statement that money 
was used to have the gas rate fixed at 85 cents. Rea 
asked Schmitz what he was to do with the money. He 
testified before the Grand Jury that Schmitz replied: 
"You keep quiet. I will let you know." 

That was the last Rea heard from Schmitz on the 
subject. Rea testified before the Grand Jury that he 
still had the money Gallagher had paid him in the prize- 
fight and gas-rate cases. 

Rea's trip to Schmitz seems to have kept him out of 
the division of the Telephone and the United Railroads 
money. 

The Telephone bribery was somewhat complicated by 
the fact that rival companies were in the field bidding 
for Supervisorial favor. It developed that eleven of the 
Supervisors 172 had accepted from T. V. Halsey, repre- 
senting the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Com- 
pany, bribes to block the granting of a franchise to the 

172 The Supervisors who accepted money from Halsey, acting 
for the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, to prevent 
a franchise being awarded an opposition company were: JBoxton, 
Walsh, Wilson. Coleman. Nicholas. Furey, Mamlock, Phillips, Lon- 
ergan. Sanderson and Coffey. The amount paid in each instance 
was $5,000. Halsey promised several of the bribed members from 
$2,500 to $5,000 in addition to be paid them, if they remained faith- 
ful, after their terms bad expired. Tbe money, the several members 
testified, bad been paid to them by Halsey in an unfurnished room 
in the Mills Building which had been temporarily engaged for Mr. 
Halsey's use by Frank G. Drum, a director of the Pacific States 
Telephone and Telegraph Company. Examples of the methods em- 
ployed to corrupt the laboringmen Supervisors who suddenly found 
themselves placed in a position of trust and responsibility will be 
found in the appendix. 



160 Confessions of the Supervisors 

Home Telephone Company. On the other hand, the 
Home Telephone Company had paid Ruef $125,000 173 
to be used in getting favorable action on its application 
for a franchise. Ruef gave Gallagher $62,000 for the 
Supervisors. Ruef states that he divided the re- 
mainder with Schmitz. In this way, the administration 
was bribed to grant the Home Telephone franchise, 
while eleven 174 of the Supervisors, a majority of the 
board, were bribed not to grant it. 

The complications which this created almost disrupted 
the Ruef-Schmitz combine. The difficulty was threshed 
out in a Sunday night caucus. Those who had received 
money from the Pacific States people, with Supervisor 
Boxton at their head, insisted that the Home franchise 



173 This is the amount given by Ruef in his "confession." He 
states that he received $25,000 when he agreed that the Home Tele- 
phone Company should have the franchise; and $100,000 when the 
franchise was granted. According to his statement he gave $65,000 
to Gallagher for the Supervisors; $30,000 he gave Schmitz; $30,000 
he kept himself. Gallagher testified on several occasions that he 
received but $62,000 from Ruef. The details of Ruef's confessions 
are not dependable. On Ruef's own statement of the basis of 
division of this particular bribe money among the Supervisors, 
Gallagher received only $62,000 of Home Telephone money from 
him. 

174 Ruef was himself to blame for the complication, for he had 
given certain of the Supervisors to understand that the purpose of 
the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company was to prevail, and 
that the Home Telephone Company would not be granted its fran- 
chise. The Supervisors in taking the Pacific Telephone and Tele- 
graph Company's money, not unreasonably supposed they were 
taking from the favored of the administration. Supervisor Wilson 
in his confession said: "The first conversation I had with Mr. 
Ruef, affecting money matters, was on the Pacific States Telephone 
matters. I told him that I had been out to dinner with Mr. Halsey, 
and I understood that everything was going to be satisfactory with 
their company. He (Ruef) said that it would terminate that way." 

Acting upon this hint, Wilson accepted $5,000 from Halsey. 
Later he told Ruef of having got "the money. Ruef told him that 
he should not have taken it. Wilson has testified that he offered 
to return it. "No," he claims Ruef replied, "don't do that just now. 
Wait and see. I will let you know later. You might get into a 
trap by giving it back; you had better wait." 

Ru«*f claims, however, that he advised Wilson to return the 
money. 



Confessions of the Supervisors 161 

should not be granted. On the other hand, Ruef and 
Schmitz, with the thousands of the Home Company in 
view, insisted that it should be. Both Ruef and Schmitz 
warned the Supervisors that they were perhaps at the 
dividing of the ways. 

"Well," replied Boxton significantly, "if men cannot 
get a thing through one way they might try and get it 
through in another." 

Mayor Schmitz demanded of Boxton what he meant 
by that. "Well," Boxton replied vaguely but defiantly, 
"you know there are other ways of reaching the mat- 

^■ er » 175 

But Boxton was unable to prevail against the support 
which Ruef and Schmitz were giving the Home Tele- 
phone Company. Although eleven of the Supervisors 
had taken money from the Pacific States Company to 
oppose the granting of a franchise to the rival Home 
Telephone Company, all but four of those present at 
the caucus decided to stand by Ruef and Schmitz, and 
voted in caucus to grant the Home Company its fran- 
chise. 176 

The next day, in open board meeting, with Boxton 
still leading the opposition, the franchise was awarded 
to the Home Telephone Company. 

175 For description of this "dividing of the ways" scene, see 
testimony of Supervisor Wilson, Transcript on Appeal, The People 
vs. Ruef, page 2843. 

176 Gallagher in his confession said of the decision of the Su- 
pervisors to stand by Ruef and Schmitz: "Mr. Wilson talked to a 
number of those boys (Supervisors who had taken money from the 
Pacific States's agent), he being one of those who had taken this 
money, and he told me that notwithstanding the fact that they had 
taken this money that he didn't feel that he wanted to stand out 
from the leadership of Mr. Ruef and wanted to act with him and 
myself in the matter and said that he would talk to the other boys 
about it, and see how they felt about the proposition of voting for 
the Home Telephone franchise anyhow." 



1 62 Confessions of the Supervisors 

The division of the money received from the Home 
Telephone Company people was one of the hardest 
problems in bribe distribution which Ruef and Gallagher 
were called upon to face. 

The first plan was to pay the Supervisors who had 
at the last supported the Home Telephone franchise, 
$3500. At once those Supervisors who had, from the 
beginning remained faithful to the administration's sup- 
port of the Home Company and had refused to accept 
money from Halsey, pointed out that they would receive 
$3500 only, while the Supervisors whom Halsey had 
bribed would get in all $8500; that is to say, $3500 from 
Gallagher for voting to grant the franchise and $5000 
from Halsey not to grant it. It was, those who had 
remained true contended, inequitable that Supervisors 
who had been faithful to Ruef and Schmitz from the 
beginning should receive only $3500; while those who 
had been temporarily bought away from the administra- 
tion received $8500. 

The "justness" of this contention appealed to all. A 
compromise was finally arranged, under which those who 
had stood out to the end against granting the Home 
franchise, should receive no part of the Home Telephone 
bribe money; those who had received $5000 from Halsey 
but finally voted for the Home franchise, were to return 
$2500 of the $5000 to Halsey, and receive $3500 from 
Gallagher, making the total of the telephone bribe money 
for each $6000; those who had received nothing from 
Halsey were each to be allowed $6000 of the Home Tele- 
phone money. In this way each Supervisor who had 
voted for the Home franchise would get $6000 for his 



Confessions of the Supervisors 163 

vote. In the case of four of the Supervisors the entire 
$6000 came from the Home Company. Gallagher, too, 
was one of this class, all his compensation being Home 
Telephone money. But Gallagher received $10,000. 
Eight of the Supervisors had received money from Hal- 
sey, and yet voted to give the Home Company its fran- 
chise. These received $3500 Home Company money 
from Gallagher and were allowed to keep $2500 of the 
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company money 
that Halsey had given them. Thus the Pacific States 
was forced to pay the Supervisors part of the bribe 
money they received for granting its rival a franchise. 
Incidentally, some of the Supervisors did not return half 
the $5000 to Halsey. But this is a phase of the ethics 
of bribery upon which it is unnecessary to touch. 

Ruef regarded this unique discipline of the Pacific 
States as just punishment for its offense of trying to 
buy his Supervisors away from him. 177 

Following the telephone bribery, came that of the 
United Railroads to secure the much-opposed over-head 
trolley permit. On account of this permit, Gallagher tes- 
tified, Ruef had given him $85,000 to be distributed 
among the Supervisors. 

Of this $85,000, Gallagher kept $15,000 for himself, 



177 In his confession, Gallagher stated that under this arrange- 
ment he paid $3,500 each to Coffey, Coleman, Furey, Lonergan, 
Mamlock, Nicholas, Phillips and Wilson; $6,000 each to Davis, 
Duffey, Harrigan and Kelley, reserving $10,000 for himself. Those 
who received no part of the Home Telephone Company money were 
Boxton, Sanderson, Walsh, McGushin and Rea. Of the five, Boxton 
and Sanderson received $5,000 each from Halsey of the Pacific Com- 
pany, and Walsh, according to his recollection, $3,500. McGushin 
and Rea received none of the bribe money paid by the two tele- 
phone companies. 



164 Confessions of the Supervisors 

gave Wilson $10,000, 178 and to each of the other Super- 
visors with the exception of Rea, 179 $4000. 

Gallagher's testimony relative to the offer of a bribe 
in the matter of the Parkside Realty Company franchise 
was quite as explicit. He swore that Ruef had stated 
to him there ought to be $750 for each Supervisor in 
this. Later on, with a change in the proposed route, 180 
Ruef had told Gallagher that the amount would be $1000 
to each Supervisor. Gallagher had conveyed this in- 
formation to the Supervisors. At the time of Ruef's 
flight, arrest and the attending breaking up of his organ- 
ization, the Supervisors were impatiently waiting for this 
money to be paid. 181 

178 Gallagher testified before the Grand Jury, that the additional 
compensation had been given Wilson because he was more useful 
than any other member, besides himself, in keeping the Supervis- 
ors in line and in passing information regarding prospective bribe 
money. 

179 Gallagher testified before the Grand Jury that he had paid 
Rea nothing, because he had no confidence in Rea's judgment and 
self-control. "I told Mr. Ruef," Gallagher testified, "I did not care 
to, that I wouldn't take the responsibility of dealing with Mr. Rea. 
I believe he was talking and had talked about matters dealing with 
me and did not care to have any dealings with him. He (Ruef) 
said, 'Very well, I'll attend to him,' or 'I will see to that myself,' 
or some such expression as that." 

180 The original plan was to have this road on Twentieth Avenue. 
But to grade Twentieth Avenue would take time, and cost upwards 
of $100,000. On tbe other hand, Nineteenth Avenue had been 
graded, macadamized, and accepted as a boulevard. The Parkside 
people asked a change in the purchased franchise, to give them the 
boTilevard. But the Charter prohibited grants of franchises over 
declared boulevards. Ruef concluded this provision could be over- 
come by ordinance. He feared criticism, but finally vielded to the 
Parkside people's request. Then went word to the Supervisors of 
increase in compensation in this particular transaction. 

iRi Gallagher's testimony before the Grand Jury regarding the 
promised bribes in the Parkside franchise undertaking was as 
follows: ' I 

"Q. Now, then, the Parkside trolley, was there an understand- 
ing in regard to monev boing paid on that? A. The Parkside 
realty company's franchise for street railway on Twentieth Avenue, 
that is what you refer to — on Nineteenth Avenue, that is correct; 
it was originally intended for Twentieth, afterward changed to 
Nineteenth; that is right there was nothing paid to any member of 
the Board upon that that I know of. There were some rumors about 



Confessions of the Supervisors 165 

One by one, sixteen of Gallagher's associates went 
before the District Attorney and made full confession. 
In every detail they bore out Gallagher's statements. 
When they had done, the District Attorney had state- 
ments from seventeen 182 of the eighteen Supervisors,, 
that they had received large sums of bribe money to in- 
fluence their votes in matters in which public service 
corporations were concerned; he knew the purposes for 
which the bribe money had been paid; he had a state- 
ment from Gallagher, corroborated at many points by 
the ' testimony of the other Supervisors, that the money 
had been furnished by Ruef. Ruef's testimony would 
bring the bribery transactions directly to the doors of 

it and Mr. Ruef spoke to me about it and said there ought to be a 
payment of $750 to each member on it and afterward said that if 
the thing - was changed from Twentieth Avenue to the Nineteenth 
Avenue, that there ought to be $1,000 each paid. 

"Q. About when did he say it ought or he would be able to pay 
them? A. He said that he expected to, yes, sir. He did not say 
he was ready to do so, on the contrary, has always denied that 
he had the money to pay it with. 

"Q. He never said he had the money before on the other mat- 
ters? A. No. 

"Q. He would just say there will be this much coming? A. 
Yes, sir. 

"Q. And the same way in regard to this also? A. Tes, sir. 

"Q. $1,000? A. Tes, sir. 

"Q. And you passed it out in the same way? A. Tes, sir. 

"Q. And it was put through with that understanding? A. 
Tes, sir. 

"Q. The only definite, was it, it hasn't come? A. Not yet. 

"Q. Do you know why the money hasn't been given to you yet 
by Ruef? A. No, sir. 

"Q. Has he given you any reason? A. Mr. Ruef said that the 
amount has not been paid to him. 

"Q. Tou heard complaints from the members that they had 
been so long about coming through? A. Tes, indeed. 

"Q. Did you make comnlaint to Ruef about it? A. Tes, sir. 

"Q. What did he say? A. He made that excuse consequently 
that he didn't have it. 

"Q. Never said that he did not expect it? A. Did not." 

182 The anxiety on the part of the confessing Supervisors to tell 
the truth was pathetic. When McGushin began his story he was 
asked: "Of course this statement you make is free and voluntary." 
"Tes," replied McGushin, simply, "Mr. Gallagher himself told me 
to tell the truth." 



1 66 Confessions of the Supervisors 

those who had bribed. This testimony could have been 
had, had the prosecution agreed to give Ruef complete 
immunity. 

Ruef was a prisoner in charge of an elisor. He 
knew that the Supervisors had confessed. In an agony 
of indecision he sent for Gallagher and Wilson to learn 
from them all that had occurred. 183 They told him 
that full statements had been made to the District At- 
torney. Ruef complained that Gallagher should have 
tried to get into touch with him before making state- 
ments. To which Gallagher replied that such a course 
would have been impossible. 184 Both Gallagher and Wil- 
son advised Ruef to make terms with the District Attor- 
ney. Ruef replied that he would think it over. Little 
came of the conference. The statements of the two Su- 
pervisors, however, must have shown Ruef how thorough 
the undoing of his organization had been, and how hope- 
less was his own case. But Ruef, sparring for time, and 
pleading for complete immunity, did not make immediate 
confession and, as a matter of fact has not, up to the 



183 "I want to learn from your own lips," he told Wilson, "if 
what I have already heard is true regarding- your making a state- 
ment to the prosecution." 

"I have been thoroughly informed," said Ruef in an interview 
given out later, "of everything that the members of the Board of 
Supervisors are reported to have told the Grand Jury, and I have 
no comment to make upon their alleged confessions at this time. 
Later, however, I will issue a statement which will furnish more 
sensations in connection with municipal graft than anything that 
has been made public." 

184 Gallagher left the conference first. Wilson testified at the 
graft trials that after Gallagher had gone Ruef stated that "had he 
been in Gallagher's place he wouldn't have made those statements 
to the prosecution." 

"You can never tell what one will do until he is placed in Mr. 
Gallagher's position," replied Wilson, "we discussed the matter 
fully for two or three days before he took that step." 



Confessions of the Supervisors 167 

present writing, told the full story of his connection with 
the public service corporations. 185 

After the confessions of the Supervisors, the District 
Attorney left Ruef to himself and hastened the Super- 
visors before the Grand Jury, where they repeated their 
miserable stories. 186 

And then the Grand Jury took up the task of tracing 
the bribe money from those who had received it, to those 
who had paid it. 



2 85 The nearest Ruef has come to a statement of his connec- 
tion with the public service corporations is contained in his story, 
"The Road I Traveled," which appeared in the San Francisco Bul- 
letin. The account is inaccurate and incomplete. Nothing, for 
example, is told by Mr. Ruef, of the proposed Bay Cities Water 
Company deal, which at one time he claimed to be the most im- 
portant of all he had in view. 

186 The Supervisors were all examined before the Grand Jury 
on the same day. Heney in an affidavit, filed in the case of The 
People vs. Calhoun et al., No. 823, states that "one of the reasons 
which actuated me to examine all of said Supervisors on the same 
day was that the newspapers had discovered that they had made 
confessions on the preceding Saturday, and I wanted to make sure 
that no one of them was tampered with by anyone who might be 
interested in changing his testimony before I succeeded in getting 
his testimony recorded by a stenographer in the Grand Jury room." 



CHAPTER XIV. 
The Source of the Bribe Money. 

After the confessions of the Supervisors, the Grand 
Jurors had definite, detailed knowledge of the corruption 
of the Union-Labor party administration. The Grand 
Jurors knew : 

(1) That bribes aggregating over $200,000 had been 
paid the Supervisors. 

(2) That of this large amount, $169,350 passed from 
Ruef to Gallagher and by Gallagher had been divided- 
among members of the board. The balance, the evi- 
dence showed, had been paid to the Supervisors direct by 
T. V. Halsey of the Pacific States Telephone Company. 

(3) The amount of each bribe; the circumstances un- 
der which it was paid; even the character of the cur- 
rency used in the transaction. 

(4) The names of the corporations benefited by the 
bribery transactions, as well as the character of the spe- 
cial privileges which their money had bought. 

With the exception of the Home Telephone Company, 
the names of the directors of these benefiting corpora- 
tions were readily obtainable. 187 



187 The following persons sat on the Boards of Directors of the 
several corporations involved in the graft disclosures, either dur- 
ing- 1906 when the briberies were committed, or during 1907 when- 
the exposures came: 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company — N. W. Halsey, E. J. de Sabla, 
John Martin, Frank G. Drum, Wm. H. Crocker, N. D. Rideout, 
Frank B. Anderson, John A. Britton, Henry E. Bothin, Louis F. 



The Source of the Bribe Money 169 

With this data before them, the Grand Jurors pro- 
ceeded to trace the source of the bribe money. 

Naturally, men who had long held places of respecta- 
bility in the community were slow to admit having given 
Ruef vast sums, even under the transparent subterfuge 
of paying him attorney's fees. 188 Some of them, when 
haled before the Grand Jury, testified reluctantly, and 
only under the closest questioning. Others frankly stood 
upon their constitutional rights, and with pitiful attempt 
to smooth out with studied phrases the harshness of the 
only acceptable reason for their refusal, declined to tes- 
tify on the ground that their testimony would tend to 
incriminate them. 



Monteagle, Jos. S. Tobin, G. H. McEnerney, Cyrus Pierce, CarJ 
Taylor, F. W. M. McCutcheon. 

Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company — Henry T. 
Scott, Louis Glass, F. W. Eaton, Timothy Hopkins, Homer S. King, 
F. G. Drum, E. S. Pillsbury, Percy T. Morgan, all of San Francisco; 
J. C. Ainsworth, P. Bacon, J. H. Thatcher, C. H. Chambreau, E. 
H. McCracken, C. B. McLeod, C. E. Hickman, J. P. McNichols, R. 
W. Schmeer, all of Portland. 

Parkside Company — W. H. Crocker, "Wellington Gregg, Jr., C. E. 
Green, J. J. Mahony, W. H. Cope, A. F. Morrison, Hugh Keenan, 
Wm. Matson, J. M. O'Brien, Douglas S. Watson, J. E. Green. 

United Railroads — Patrick Calhoun, G. F. Chapman, Geo. H. 
Davis, Tirey L. Ford, Benj. S. Guiness, I. W. Hellman, Chas. Hol- 
brook, A. C. Kains, J. Henry Meyer, Thornwell Mullally, Jos. S. 
Tobin. 

The names of the board of directors of the Home Telephone 
Company, during the period of the bribery transactions, has not, 
so far as the writer knows, been made public. A. C. Kains resigned 
from the directorate of the United Railroads, and Jos. S. Tobin 
from the directorates of the United Railroads and the Pacific Gas 
and Electric Company, about the time of the disclosures. 

188 The inconsistency of the "attorney fee plea" is well illus- 
trated in the United Railroads transaction. Ruef received $200,000 
from the United Railroads because of the trolley permit. General 
Tirey L. Ford, head of the United Railroads law department, to 
which he devoted all his time, was credited with receiving a sal- 
ary of $10,000 a year. Thus Ruef's single "fee" was as much as 
the United Railroads would have paid its head lawyer in twenty 
years, almost a lifetime of professional service. And Ruef, it 
must be remembered, in addition was getting $1,000 a month from 
the United Railroads — more than the chief of that corporation's 
legal department was receiving. 



170 The Source of the Bribe Money 

Nevertheless, the Grand Jury succeeded in wringing 
from the officials of the several corporations involved, 
damaging admissions ; admissions, in fact, quite as start- 
ling as had been the confessions of the Supervisors. 
The refusal of some of those not unreasonably under 
suspicion, to testify was, too, quite as significant. 

In the matter of the bribery of the Supervisors by T. V. 
Halsey, agent of the Pacific States Telephone and Tele- 
graph Company, the Grand Jury had information that 
eleven Supervisors had been paid over $50,000 to oppose 
the granting of a franchise to the Home Telephone 
Company. A majority of the payments were made in 
an unfurnished suite of three rooms in the Mills Build- 
ing. Frank Drum, a director of the company, admitted 
having engaged the rooms at Halsey's request. E. J. 
Zimmer, auditor for the company, testified that Halsey 
held the position of General Agent of the company. 
Halsey's duties, the testimony showed, were assigned 
him by Louis Glass, vice-president and general manager, 
and for a time acting president of the company. Hal- 
sey, under the company's organization, reported to Glass. 
Zimmer testified that Halsey could not spend the com- 
pany's money except on the proper approval of the ex- 
ecutive officer of the company. From October, 1905, 
when President Sabin of the company died, until Feb- 
ruary, 1906, when Henry T. Scott, Sabin's successor, was 
elected, Glass acted as president and as executive officer. 
He had, according to Auditor Zimmer, authority to ap- 
prove expenditures made by Halsey. After Scott's ele- 
vation to the presidency, either Glass or Scott could 
have approved such expenditures. Zimmer testified fur- 



The Source of the Bribe Money 171 

ther to giving Halsey, at Glass's order, 189 as high as 
$10,000 at a time. Halsey 190 gave no vouchers for these 
large sums ; they did not appear on the books ; 191 they 
were carried on tags. 

Zimmer stated that he did not know for what the 
funds were used; had merely followed out Glass's in- 
struction, and given Halsey the money. 

The testimony of Thomas Sherwin threw some light 

189 Zimmer insisted at first that the total of the amounts which 
he turned over to Halsey would not exceed $20,000. Later he ad- 
mitted that he had not kept track of the amounts, and the total 
might have been $30,000. This he increased to $35,000, and finally 
stated that it was "not over $40,000, if it was that." He ad- 
mitted that it would have been possible for Executive Officer Glass 
to have paid out $70,000 without his knowledge. "Checks," he 
said, "could have been signed without going through me; could 
have been carried just the same as this tag account was." 

William J. Kennedy, cashier and assistant treasurer of the com- 
pany, who had charge of the "tags," stated that during February, 
1906, considerable amounts were drawn out in this way, which 
might have totalled as high as $70,000. 

190 Regarding the manner in which money was furnished to 
Halsey, Zimmer testified before the Grand Jury as follows: 

"Q. This $10,000 that you gave him (Halsey) under direction 
of Mr. Glass, in what shape did you hand it to him? A. Currency. 

"Q. Did you have the currency on hand or send out and get it? 
A. Sent out and got it. I went out and got it. 

"Q. Where did you get it? A. I don't remember, I had to go 
to several banks. 

"Q. Did Mr. Glass tell you he wanted you to give it to him in 
currency? A. Yes, sir." 

191 These admissions led to close questioning of Mr. Zimmer. 
The following is taken from his testimony given before the Grand 
Jury: 

"Q. Now, in what way did that money appear in the books? 
A. Didn't appear in the books. 

"Q. How was it taken care of? A. No voucher was ever made 
for it. 

"Q. How would your cash account for it? A. It wasn't taken 
out of the cash account, so far as I know. 

"Q. What was it taken from? A. By check issued on the 
regular bank account. 

"Q. Who was the check made payable to? A. Eaton, treas- 
urer, the same as other coin checks are issued, coin or currency. 

"Q. It would have appeared somewhere in the books, that check, 
that amount would be deducted from the bank account? A. Yes, 
sir; but carried in the expense account of the cash suspense. 

"Q. Leave a tag with you? Leave a tag, would you? A. 
Yes." 



172 The Source of the Bribe Money 

upon the bookkeeping methods followed. Sherwin had 
been traveling auditor for the American Bell Telephone 
Company, which concern owned 51 per cent, of the stock 
of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company. 
Later he took Zimmer's place as auditor of the Pacific 
States Company. 

Mr. Sherwin admitted that some of Mr. Halsey's 
"special expenses," at least, were finally charged to the 
company's legal department. 192 

Passing from the investigation of the bribery transac- 
tions of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph 
Company to the activities of the Home Telephone Com- 
pany, the Grand Jury examined prominent business men 
of Los Angeles as well as of San Francisco. 

The plan of operation followed by the capitalists be- 
hind this enterprise was to organize a construction com- 
pany, whose part was to establish the plants, put them 

192 Before the Grand Jury, Sherwin was closely questioned as to 
one of Mr. Halsey's "Special expense" claims. The following- is 
from his testimony: 

"Q. Now, then, that shows that it was charged against what 
fund? A. That got in the legal expense finally, we charged it to 
Reserve for Contirj scent Liabilities, and each month we credit that 
account, I have forgotten maybe $2,000, and charge it to legal to 
make it run even in the expense each month. 

"Q. Why does it go to legal? A. Because — instead — to what 
else would it go? 

"Q. What makes it legal? A. Oh, that's just a subdivision of 
our expense. 

"Q. Was this $600 legal expenses? A. I don't know what it 
was. 

"Q. Who told you to put it under legal expenses? A. You 
mean who told us to put it in that account? 

"Q. There is nothing on that paper that indicates that it goes 
into legal expense? A. No. 

"Q. Now. then, you say it was finally charged to the legal de- 
partment. Why? A. Simply because everything that is charged 
to that reserve finally gets into legal expense. 

"Q. Everything that is charged to that reserve fund? A. Yes, 
that reserve fund is chnrsed off for legal expense. 

"Q. And what is the reason for that? A. For charging it to 
legal? 

"Q. Yes. A. For charging it to legal — because — I don't know 
the reason — it is always done that way.." 



The Source of the Bribe Money 173 

into operation and turn them over to the operating com- 
panies, taking their pay in the securities of the local op- 
erating company. Thus, at San Francisco, the Empire 
Construction Company played an important part in the 
Home Telephone Company enterprise. 

As Heney put it, the Empire Construction Company 
received the most benefit from the granting of the Home 
Telephone franchise. The Empire Construction Com- 
pany furnished at least part of the money that went into 
the fusion campaign fund in 1905. Investigation showed 
that 25 per cent, of the stock of the Empire Construction 
Company belonged to men who were in the construction 
solely, while 75 per cent, was in the hands of men who 
were financing the enterprise. This last block of stock 
at the time of the investigation was divided among 
James H. Adams and Thomas W. Phillips of the Adams- 
Phillips Company, A. B. Cass, Gerald S. Torrance and 
A. K. Detweiler. Detweiler could not be found. Adams, 
Cass and Torrance, after answering some of the ques- 
tions put to them, availed themselves of their constitu- 
tional privilege, and refused to make further answers. 
The books of the Adams-Phillips Company disappeared 
and employees of that company undertook to evade an- 
swering questions regarding - the disappearance, on the 
ground that they might incriminate themselves. But a 
sharp order from the Superior Court brought out their 
testimony. However, none of them gave testimony that 
led to the discovery of the missing volumes. 

But the general trend of the testimony went to show 
that the responsible agent for the Empire Construction 
Company and the Home Telephone Company in San 



174 The Source of the Bribe Money 

Francisco was A. K. Detweiler. The testimony showed 
Detweiler to have been at Ruef s office in consultation 
with Ruef and Supervisor Gallagher; he was active in 
every move that was made on behalf of the Empire Con- 
struction Company and of the Home Telephone Com- 
pany in San Francisco, and had the disbursing of the 
funds. 

Incidentally, through the testimony of Dr. Fred But- 
terfield, a representative of Adolphus Busch, the brewer, 
the Grand Jury learned that a third telephone company, 
the United States Independent, seeking a franchise to do 
business in San Francisco, would have bid for the fran- 
chise which the Home Company received, had not the 
franchise been so worded that only the telephone system 
controlled by the Home people could be operated under 
it. Butterfield stated that his company, made up of re- 
sponsible capitalists, considered the franchise worth 
something over a million dollars, and was prepared to 
bid up to a million dollars, if necessary, to get it. The 
Home Company paid San Francisco $25,000 for the 
franchise. Butterfield testified that his company had in- 
tended to invest $4,500,000 in the San Francisco enter- 
prise, and that Ruef knew of the extent of the com- 
pany's plans. With such testimony, the assertions of 
Ruef's partisans that opposition to the Ruef-Schmitz ad- 
ministration retarded development of the community 
compare curiously. 193 

The Grand Jury could not secure the attendance of 
Mr. Detweiler, for about the time of the investigation 
Mr. Detweiler mysteriously disappeared. The investiga- 

193 See Supervisors' letter to the Examiner, footnote 64, page 62. 



The Source of the Bribe Money 175 

tion into the affairs of the Home Company had, there- 
fore,, to be concluded without Mr. Detweiler's testimony. 
Following the policy of the stockholders of the Em- 
pire Construction Company, the officials of the United 
Railroads refused to testify. President Patrick Cal- 
houn 19 * and Thornwell Mullally, assistant to the presi- 
dent, when given opportunity to state their side of the 
case under oath, stood upon their constitutional rights, 
and declined to give evidence that might incriminate 
them. 195 They were accordingly excused from the Grand 
Jury room. 



194 Calhoun returned to San Francisco April 10. In interviews 
published in the San Francisco papers of April 12, Calhoun em- 
phatically denied all knowledge of the bribery transactions. In his 
interview in the Chronicle he said: 

"I wish to go on record before the people of San Francisco as 
stating- that not one of the officers or legal counsel of the United 
Railroads of San Francisco or the United Railroads Investment 
Company of New Jersey ever paid, authorized to be paid, approved 
of paying or knew that one dollar was paid to secure the passage 
of the trolley franchise ordinance by the Board of Supervisors, and 
if I had known that one dollar was paid for the purpose of secur- 
ing this franchise I would not have accepted it." 

195 The refusal of Calhoun and Mullally to testify created a sen- 
sation, even in those sensational times. The Chronicle in its issue 
of May 4, 1907, printed the following account of the incident: 

"For the first time in the history of the examination of witnesses 
before this Grand Jury, Heney was careful not to instruct the 
prospective witnesses as to their legal rights. Instead he merely 
asked them if they were already familiar with their rights under 
the law. 

" 'I am aware,' said Calhoun, who was the first to be called, 
'that anything I might tell this body might be used against me.' 

" 'With that understanding are you willing to become a witness 
before this Grand Jury?' asked Heney. 

" 'I am not,' was Calhoun's response. 

"The jurymen who had leaned forward as the reply of the presi- 
dent hung on his lips sank back in their seats. 

" 'That is all, Mr. Calhoun,' said Heney to the president, and 
then going to the door he said to the bailiff, 'Call Mr. Mullally.' 

"Mullally's examination was identical with that of his superior's 
and he was permitted to go. Neither President Calhoun nor As- 
sistant Mullally will be called again to the jury room." 

Calhoun issued the following statement of his refusal to testify: 

"When called before the Grand Jury this afternoon and in- 
formed that it had under investigation the alleged bribery of pub- 
lic officials by the United Railroads, we declined to be sworn and in 



176 The Source of the Bribe Money 

But the employees of the company did not escape so 
easily. When, for example, George Francis, William 
M. Abbott, George B. Willcutt and Celia McDermott 
refused to answer questions put to them in the Grand 
Jury room, they were haled before the Superior Court, 
where they were informed that they must testify. 

In spite of the hostility of these witnesses, the prose- 
cution succeeded in securing a wealth of data regarding 
$200,000 which passed into the hands of Tirey L. Ford 
and, according to the theory of the prosecution, from 
Ford to Ruef. 

The prosecution established the fact that two days 
before Mayor Schmitz signed the trolley permit, that is 
to say, on May 22, 1906, Patrick Calhoun, as president 
of the United Railroads, received by telegraphic trans- 
fer from the East to the United States Mint at San 
Francisco, $200,000. 196 Two days later, the day the 
trolley permit was signed, President Calhoun took Ford 

order that our action may not be misconstrued, I call your atten- 
tion to these facts: 

"For months past the public prints have been full of charges 
traceable to certain persons connected with the prosecution that 
they had positive evidence that the United Railroads had spent not 
less than $450,000 in bribing- the officials of this city. I have re- 
peatedly stated that neither I nor the United Railroads, nor any 
official of the United Railroads, had bribed anyone, authorized any 
bribery, knew of any bribery or approved of any bribery. This 
statement I now fully reaffirm. It is not for us nor any officer of 
our company to disprove these grave charges. It is for those 
making them to prove them. We do not now care to discuss their 
motives. We know that they cannot produce any truthful evidence 
connecting us or any officer of the United Railroads with this al- 
leged crime. 

"We relied, in declining to be sworn, upon the broad Constitu- 
tional right of every American citizen that a defendant cannot be 
called as a witness, and upon the justice, fairness and common 
sense of the Grand Jury, to whom we look for complete vindica- 
tion without offering one word in our own behalf." 

19C For several weeks after the great fire of April 18-19-20, 1906, 
the banks were closed at San Francisco. Money could, however, 
during this period, be transferred to San Francisco, through the 
United States mint. 



The Source of the Bribe Money 177 

to the Mint and instructed Superintendent of the Mint 
Leach to give Ford $50,000 of the $200,000. Ford 
told Leach that he wanted currency. The currency was 
finally secured by exchanging gold for bills at the Mint 
headquarters of the relief work then being carried on 
in San Francisco. These bills, it was shown, were all 
in small denominations, having been sent to San Fran- 
cisco from all parts of the country by individual sub- 
scribers to the relief fund. 

This money was taken away from the Mint, the tes- 
timony showed, by Ford and William M. Abbott. 

Soon after, Ruef loaned Supervisor Rea 197 $3500. 
By a curious trick of fate Rea had leased a piece of 
property from Rudolph Spreckels. In payment on this 
lease he used the money that Ruef had loaned him. 
This money was all in bills of small denominations. 
Late in July Ruef gave Gallagher $45,000, all in bills 
of small denominations, as partial settlement with the. 
Supervisors for granting the trolley permit. Gallagher 
gave Wilson of this money $5000, and the other Super- 
visors with the exception of Rea $2000 each. They all 
understood that it was because of the trolley franchise 
deal. The balance Gallagher retained for himself. 

The confessing Supervisors, with the exception of 
Wilson and Rea, testified that their first payment on 
account of the trolley permit was $2000 each, in bills 
of small denominations. Wilson testified to having re- 
ceived $5000. 

Later, Ford, making two trips to the Mint, drew out 

197 Gallagher had notified Ruef that he would not deal with 
Rea in the trolley transaction. Ruef, Gallagher alleged, had agreed 
to attend to Rea's case himself. See Chapter XIII. 



178 The Source of the Bribe Money 

the $150,000 balance of the $200,000 that had been tele- 
graphed to Calhoun's credit. As before, the Mint paid 
him in gold, and as before, Ford exchanged the gold 
for currency. But instead of getting bills of small de- 
nomination, on the two trips which Ford made for that 
$150,000, he secured fifty and one hundred-dollar bills. 

On the day that Ford drew the last of that $200,000 
from the Mint, an agent in the employ of the prosecu- 
tion followed Ruef from his office to the car barns in 
which Ford's office was then located. A few days later 
Ruef gave Gallagher $40,000 in fifty and one hundred- 
dollar bills, the greater part of which Gallagher dis- 
tributed among the Supervisors as second and final pay- 
ment on account of the granting of the trolley permit. 

In the Parkside deal, the Grand Jury had little dif- 
ficulty in tracing the money involved. William H. 
Crocker, 198 a capitalist of large affairs, who owned the 
largest interest in the company, showed astonishing igno- 
rance of the management. The Grand Jury learned 
little from him. 

But those interested in the enterprise with Crocker 
not only told how half the money was paid Ruef, but 
how the books had been manipulated to conceal the 
payment. 

198 Crocker testified before the Grand Jury, however, that he 
had known Ruef for many years. "He (Ruef) and my brother-in- 
law, Prince Poniatowski," said Crocker, "both being French, and 
both being pretty clever men, struck up quite a friendship to- 
gether and through that means I used to see more or less of Ruef 
and that Was one of those peculiar friendships that spring up with 
people who are not identified and not connected in any way what- 
ever in any business enterprise, sprang up between Ruef and my- 
self, and when he told me that in my office it didn't surprise me 
a bit." 

Crocker had testified that Ruef had promised to do all he could 
to get him his franchise, and wouldn't want a dollar from Crocker, 
or from the institution with which Crocker was connected. 



The Source of the Bribe Money 179 

Ruef, according to the testimony of officials of the 
company, had first demanded $50,000 as price for his 
employment to put the franchise through, but had finally 
agreed to take $30,000. This amount, officials of the 
company testified, was provided by drawing two checks, 
one in favor of H. P. Umbsen and the second in the 
name of Douglass S. Watson, secretary of the Parkside 
Company. Umbsen and Watson thereupon deeded to 
the Parkside Company two parcels of land. The trans- 
action was then charged to the purchase of property. 199 



199 Of this manipulation of the books, President J. E. Green, of 
the Parkside Company, testified before the Grand Jury as follows: 

"Q. How was the transaction to appear in the books? How 
was the property account to be charged with it? It would have 
to show some property. A. It was charged for a block that was 
purchased from Watson and Umbsen, a block of land. 

"Q. Did you tell Watson to do that? A. I believe I did. 

"Q. How did they get paid for the land? A. They deeded 
this block which they had to the company and the company in turn 
executed a deed to them, returning the land to them, simply a 
matter of bookkeeping. 

"Q. Was the company's deed put on record? From them to the 
company? A. I rather think so. 

"Q. What was the purpose of that? A. To get a charge to the 
property account for the expenditure of that amount of money. 

"Q. What was the reason for charging it to property account? 
A. Every expenditure that was made was charged to property 
account with the idea the property had to pay it back. 

"Q. Did you always go through the form with every expense 
that wasn't actually a piece of property, did you go through a 
form of deeding a piece of property and then deeding it back? A. 
No, sir. 

"Q. What was the reason of doing it in this instance? A. 
Because — other things — there was a case — grading, sewering or 
fencing the blocks when they spoke for itself. 

"Q. I don't see how it helped you; it went to the property ac- 
count and the property went right out; don't see how it helped you 
any. A. It had to be charged to something, Mr. Heney. 

"Q. Why couldn't it be charged to what it was, attorneys' fees? 
A. Because attorneys' fees were charged against property account. 

"Q. Were Morrison & Cope's fees charged up as a piece of 
property and did they go through a rigmarole of deeding a piece 
of property too? A. No; their fees or any other expense against 
the property interests. 

"Q. Didn't they go into the books as a fee for Morrison & Cope 
and charged as expenses against property? A. Charged direct to 
property. 

"Q. As expense? A. Don't know as expense; it was charged 
to property, showing that we had that much money in property; 



180 The Source of the Bribe Money 

The property was deeded back to Umbsen and Watson 
at the same time, but these last deeds were not imme- 
diately recorded. 

Watson cashed the checks at the Crocker- Woolworth 
Bank, of which William H. Crocker was president. He 
testified that he received currency for them. 

The $30,000 he took to G. H. Umbsen. Half the 
$30,000 Umbsen paid Ruef. 

At the time of the exposure, Umbsen 200 testified he 

when we got through selling anything over, that was profit in our 
favor. 

"Q. It appeared on the books as having been paid to Morrison 
& Cope for attorneys' fees? A. Can't say without seeing the 
books. 

"Q. Ordinary way of keeping books? A. Yes. 

"Q. You didn't cover up anything you paid to Morrison & Cope 
by putting through the hands of the secretary? A. No, sir. 

"Q. Why did you cover up this in connection with Ruef? A. I 
don't know; suppose the property account is probably the proper 
one to charge it to. 

"Q. Only explanation of it? A. Yes, sir." 

200 Early in the graft investigation Detective William J. Burns, 
with studied carelessness, dropped a remark in the presence of a 
salesman of the Parkside Company, that he had heard money was 
being used in the Parkside case. Soon after, Thomas L. Hender- 
son, secretary of the company, received word from William I. Bro- 
beck, of the law firm of Morrison, Cope & Brobeck, attorney for the 
Parkside Company, to call at that firm's law office. Of the inci- 
dent, Henderson testified before the Grand Jury as follows: 

"Q. His first question to you was what? A. We went in 
there. He said, Mr. Henderson, I am going to talk to you about 
Parkside and he said, have you an attorney? I said, no. I have 
no attorney. He says, it might be well for you to get an attorney. 
I said, all right, Mr. Brobeck, T will take you for an attorney. He 
said, all right, I will take you for a client. 

"Q. Then what was said? A. Then he spoke, he said, you 
know about that remark made by Mr. Burns at Nineteenth and H. 
I replied how I got the remark from Hooper who was the sales- 
man out there and I had passed it off, saying I did not want to 
talk about it. Then he said to me, T can't remember just the words, 
but his advice to me was not to say anything about it. I told him 
certainly, I would not. Then he spoke about Umbsen. Could I 
communicate with Gus? And I told him I could on the 4th of the 
month, he was then between Havana and Florida, and would ar- 
rive in New York about the 4th. Do you think it would be advisable 
to telegraph or write to him not to say anything? I said: Oh, no, 
I don't see any necessity for doing that. 

"Q. What was tho remark as you heard it that Burns made? 
A. We were coming down on the Sutter street car, Mr. Kernan 
and myself, when Ed Hooper, salesman, spoke to us and said: 



The Source of the Bribe Money 181 

was withholding the second payment until the franchise 
should be put through. 201 

In the gas-rate case, the Grand Jury found that the 
corporation that would, in the final analysis, benefit by 
the increase in gas rates, was the Pacific Gas and Elec- 
tric Company. The four responsible men in this com- 
pany were found to be N. W. Halsey, John Martin, 
Eugene de Sabla and Frank G. Drum. Halsey was out 
of the State for the greater part of the time and Cyrus 
Bierce, acting as treasurer of the corporation, looked 
after his interests. This narrowed the responsibility 
down to de Sabla, Martin and Drum. 

I had a distinguished visitor yesterday. I said, who; he said, Mr. 
Burns, the detective. He said, I knew something about the tele- 
phone cases. I say what he said, a little something. He asked 
me about that and started for the automobile and when he got 
there, he turned around and said, another thing, I want to ask you 
about, I heard Ruef got $30,000 from Parkside. Who would be the 
man to see. I am only out here selling land and don't know any- 
thing about that. I had been here with Watson when he was agent 
and when Umbsen took charge he kept me in the same job. He 
was the salesman out there, that was at that time they had this 
automobile race and I turned around and said: I see the Oldsmo- 
bile won the race in Los Angeles, because I didn't want to continue 
the conversation with him. 

"Q. Did Brobeck, in his conversation, tell you where he got 
the information that Burns had been out there? A. No sir, he did 
not. 

"Q. Did he tell you that he knew what Burns had said? A. The 
impression I got was that he knew. I don't remember his saying in 
just so many words. 

"Q. He referred to the statement made by Burns? A. He may 
have made the remark that you know about what was said out 
there. 

"Q. At the time you talked about your having an attorney 
did he tell you to send him some money? A. After we finished he 
said, 'Mr. Henderson, you had better send me pay for this" inter- 
view.' I said what? and he said five or ten dollars and when I got 
to the office, I mailed him a check for $10." 

201 Ruef's version of the affair, as Ruef gave it before the 
Grand Jury, was: "Mr. Umbsen stated to me that with a great 
deai of difficulty, he had been able to persuade the people interested 
to allow me this fee. I thereupon told Mr. Gallagher that I had 
made arrangements to secure for myself an attorney's fee in the 
matter and I would allow him something over $13,500 as his pro- 
portion of the fee. Mr. Gallagher estimated what it would "require 
for his services in the matter and we had discussed would the 
Supervisors accept that amount." 



1 82 The Source of the Bribe Money 

De Sabla testified before the Grand Jury that Ruef 
was not, to his knowledge, at any time on the pay roll 
of the company. Martin swore that he knew of no 
money that had been expended in connection with the 
fixing of the gas rates, and expressed himself as being 
as surprised as anyone at the confessions of the Super- 
visors to having received money after the gas rates had 
been fixed. Later, after Ruef had plead guilty to extor- 
tion, both de Sabla and Martin refused to testify further 
before the Grand Jury. 202 

Mr. Frank G. Drum, when called before the Grand 
Jury, stated that he had had no conversation with Ruef 
in reference to the fixing of the gas rates. 203 But later 
Ruef told the Grand Jury that the money which he had 
turned over to Gallagher in the gas-rate transaction had 
come from Drum. 204 

202 John Martin's statement, when he refused to testify, fur- 
nishes fair example of the attitude of those who became involved 
in the graft scandal. The Grand Jury record shows: 

"John Martin recalled. 

"Foreman (to witness). You have already been sworn, so you 
can consider yourself under oath. Mr. Martin: I desire to stand 
on my constitutional right and not to testify further. 

"Mr. Heney: If you feel that your testimony might have a ten- 
dency to subject you to prosecution — . A. (interrupting). No, not 
that. I am not so advised that that is necessary. My constitutional 
rights are broader than that, I am advised. 

"Q. Then you don't desire to testify? A. No, sir. 

"Mr. Heney: All right." 

203 Mr. Frank G. Drum testified as follows: 

"Q. Do you know Abraham Ruef? A. Met him. 

"Q. Did you have any conversation with him about that time? 
A. No, sir. 

"Q. I mean a conversation with reference to the rates? A. No, 
not that I know anything about." 

204 Ruef on this point testified before the Grand Jury as fol- 
lows: 

"I received from Mr. Frank G. Drum, $20,000 as an attorney's 
fee as spoken of between ourselves, about the time that the gas 
rates were being fixed. Of that money, I gave to Mr. Gallagher 
for the Board of Supervisors about, as I remember it now, .$14,000. 
It may have been a few hundred dollars more or less. I think 
about $14,000. Mr. Drum spoke to me about employing me in 
the service of the company some month or two before, I believe, 



The Source of the Bribe Money 183 

The first to be indicted because of these transactions 
was Ruef. Sixty-five indictments were on March 20 
returned against him. Eighteen were based upon the 
bribing of Supervisors in the so-called fight trust mat- 
ter; seventeen upon the bribing of Supervisors in fixing 
the gas rates ; thirteen upon the bribing of Supervisors 
in the matter of the sale of the Home Telephone Com- 
pany franchise; seventeen in the matter of granting the 
over-head trolley permit. 

On the same day, ten indictments were returned 
against Theodore V. Halsey, of the Pacific States Tele- 
phone and Telegraph Company, for the bribery of Su- 
pervisors to prevent the sale of a franchise to a compe- 
ting telephone company. A number of indictments were 
found against A. K. Detweiler, for bribing Supervisors 
in the matter of the sale of the Home Telephone fran- 

and engaged me as attorney to represent the interests, as I under- 
stood it from him, which he represented in the company, at $1000 
a month, of which I received, I believe, for two or three months. 
At the time of the fixing of the gas rates some of the Supervisors, 
as I was informed by Supervisor Gallagher, insisted upon fixing 
an extremely low rate, such a rate as would have been ruinous to 
the business of the company, a rate which neither I nor any one 
who had looked up the question would have considered under any 
circumstances to be reasonable, proper or maintainable, and said 
they were determined absolutely to reduce those rates. The matter 
was brought up at one of the Sunday evening caucuses and some 
of the members of the Board of Supervisors insisted that the board 
had been pledged by its platform to a rate of 75c. per thousand 
feet; they thought that was even too much and made some strong 
speeches and others maintained the 75c. rate and they contemplated 
fixing the 75c. rate that evening, that is to say, agreeing to do it 
at the proper time which I suppose was a week thereafter. 'In the 
meantime, the company sustained a heavy fire loss, not the fire 
of April 18th, but the previous fire, which caused them a great deal 
of damage, and I told Mr. Drum that it would be necessary for 
me, in order to protect the interests of the company and the inter- 
erts which he represented, to have an additional attorney's fee and 
I told him that I thought it would require $20,000. He considered 
the matter and one day, a day or two afterward, he agreed to pay 
me the additional attorney's fee of $20,000 which I thereafter 
received. 

"Q. Where did the conversation take place in which you told 
him about the necessity of having the $20,000? A. At his office in 
the Mills Building." 



184 The Source of the Bribe Money 

chise. The Detweiler indictments, thirteen in number, 
were based upon payments of money by Ruef to Gal- 
lagher, and by Gallagher to different members of the 
board. On March 23, the Grand Jury returned nine 
indictments against Louis Glass, vice-president of the 
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, based 
upon the bribing, through Halsey, of Supervisors to 
prevent the granting of a competing telephone franchise. 
During the two months that followed, the Grand 
Jury continued at the steady grind of graft investigation. 
Finally, on May 24, one additional indictment 205 was 
brought against Halsey and two against Glass. On that 

205 Although the Graft Prosecution was to be effectively opposed 
by Union Labor party leaders, the San Francisco Labor Council, 
made up of representatives of practically every San Francisco 
labor union, on the night of March 23, 1907, adopted resolutions 
declaring for the prosecution of bribe-givers as follows: 

"Whereas, The indictments issued during the past few days by 
the San Francisco Grand Jury against certain individuals involve 
specific charges of flagrant and widespread corruption on the part 
of many members of the present city government; and whereas, said 
government, having adopted the name of 'Union Labor' has pro- 
fessed particular concern for the welfare of the working class, as 
represented by organized labor, and has sought and secured elec- 
tion upon pledges of loyalty to the principles, economic and political, 
to which organized labor everywhere is committed; and whereas, 
the alleged conduct of the city government is not only "grossly 
repugnant to the principles of organized labor, but violates every 
rule of common honesty; and whereas, the conduct of the 'Union 
Labor' government and the inevitable association thereof with the 
character of the labor movement is calculated to lead to public 
misconception of the latter and thus to injure it and lessen its 
efficiency in its chosen field, therefore be it 

"Resolved, By the San Francisco Labor Council, that we declare 
that every corruptionist, briber and bribed, should be prosecuted 
and punished according to law, and hereby pledge our co-operation 
to that end; further 

"Resolved, That we reassert the position of the San Francisco 
Labor Council as a body organized and conducted for purely 
economic purposes, having no connection, direct or implied, with 
the Union Labor party or any other political party or organization, 
and therefore being in no way responsible for the conduct or mis- 
conduct of any such party or organization; further 

"Resolved, That we also reaffirm our belief that the private 
ownership of public utilities constitutes the chief source of public 
corruption, and is in fact a premium thereon, and therefore ought 
to be displaced by the system of public ownership of public utili- 
ties." 



The Source of the Bribe Money 185 

date, fourteen indictments were returned against Patrick 
Calhoun. Thornwell Mullally. Tirey L. Ford. William 
M. Abbott, 206 Abraham Ruef and Mayor E. E. Schmitz. 
indicted jointly, for the bribery in connection with the 
granting of the over-head trolley permit. 

The day following. May 25, G. H. Umbsen, J. E. 
Green. W. I. Brobeck and Abraham Ruef were jointly 
indicted fourteen times on charges of ottering a bribe to 
fourteen Supervisors in the Parkside franchise matter. 
The same day. fourteen indictments were returned 
against Frank G. Drum, Abraham Ruef. Eugene E. 
Schmitz, Eugene de Sabla and John Martin on charges 
of giving and offering bribes to fourteen Supervisors in 
the matter of fixing the gas rates. 

Still another series of graft indictments were to be 
found. Three prize-fight promoters. YV. Britt, "Eddie" 
Graney and '''Timmie" Coffroth were, on nine counts, 
indicted jointly with Schmitz and Ruef for bribery in 
connection with the awarding to them of virtually a 
monopoly of the promotion of prize fighting in San 
Francisco. 



206 At the time Patrick Calhoun held the office of President of 
the United Railroads; Mullally was assistant to the President; 
Ford general counsel for the corporation. Abbott was "Ford's 
assistant. 



CHAPTER XV. 
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion. 207 

While the Supervisors were making full confessions 
of their participation in the bribery transactions, and the 
Grand Jury was dragging from unwilling promoters, 
capitalists and corporation employees information as to 
the source of the corruption funds, Ruef's days and 
nights were devoted to consideration of plans for his 
own safety. Ruef, after his arrest and confinement un- 
der Elisor Biggy, became one of the scramblers of his 
broken organization to save himself. 

But Ruef was more clever, more far-seeing than any 
of the Supervisors. His course from the beginning in- 
dicates that, in considering confession, he carefully 
weighed against the power of the regularly constituted 
authorities of San Francisco to protect him if he testified 
for the State, the ability of organized corruptionists to 
punish for betrayal. Ruef realized that although the 
all-powerful State "machine," labeled Republican, of 
which the San Francisco organization labeled Union 
Labor, which he had built up, was but a part, had for 
the moment lost control of the San Francisco District 
Attorney's office, but the "machine" still dominated the 
other departments of the municipal government, as well 

207 The statements contained in this chapter are based on affida- 
vits filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 
823. Many of the statements are qualified, and in many instances 
denied, in affidavits filed by Ruef, his friends, associates and attor- 
neys, in the same proceedings. 



Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 187 

as of the State government. 208 Ruef realized that Lang- 
don might die; that the State Attorney General might 
set Langdon aside and himself conduct the graft prose- 
cution. And he realized that some day a district attor^ 
ney other than Langdon would be prosecutor in San 
Francisco. In any of these events, what would be the 
lot of the man who had betrayed the scarcely-known 
captains of the powerful machine? 

On the other hand, the hour when the evidence which 
the District Attorney had accumulated against him 
would be presented before a trial jury, approached with 
deadly certainty. 

Such considerations led to Ruef devoting his days to 
resistance of the proceeding against him in the trial 
court, where a jury to try him on one of the five extor- 
tion charges on which he had been indicted, was being 
impaneled, while his nights were given to scheming to 
wring from the District Attorney immunity from punish- 
ment for the extortions and briberies which had been 
brought to his door. 

The period was one of activity for both District At- 
torney and Ruef. On the whole, however, the District 
Attorney had the liveliest time of it. 

To be sure, Ruef had been brought before the trial 
judge; that is to say, the impaneling of a trial jury had 

208 In this connection, in discussing the difficulties in the way 
of bringing 1 criminals to trial, the San Francisco Chronicle, in its 
issue of March 14, 1907, said: 

"The penal laws of California are admirable, and cover almost 
every transaction deserving moral reprobation. The only reason 
why all our people are not either virtuous or in jail is that the 
same Legislatures which have so carefully defined crimes and pre- 
scribed punishments have been still more careful to enact codes 
of criminal procedure that nobody can be convicted of any crime 
if he has the cash to pay for getting off. And what the legislatures 
have failed to do in this direction the courts have usually made 
good." 



1 88 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 

begun, but Ruef s technical fight had not been aban- 
doned for a moment. 

The appearance of Ruef under arrest was signal for 
a fight to have him admitted to bail. But release under 
bonds Judge Dunne denied him on the ground of the 
immediate approach of his trial, and because he had at- 
tempted to put himself beyond the process of the court. 
Ruef's attorneys appealed to the United States District 
Court for a writ of habeas corpus, but this was denied 
them. His attorneys filed affidavits alleging bias and 
prejudice on the part of Judge Dunne against Ruef, 
and demanding a change of venue. And with these 
various motions, all of which the District Attorney was 
called upon to meet, was the appeal from Judge Heb- 
bard's order to the Federal Supreme Court, which was 
considered in a previous chapter. 

The actual work of drawing a jury to try Ruef began 
on March 13, 209 eight days later than the date originally 
set for trial. The State was represented by District At- 
torney Langdon, Francis J. Heney and Hiram W. John- 
son. At the defense end of the table with Schmitz and 
Ruef were Attorneys Joseph C. Campbell, Samuel M. 
Shortridge, Henry Ach, Charles A. Fairall and J. J. 
Barrett. But it developed that one of the four citizens 
drawn for jury service was not in the courtroom. The 
defense objected to proceeding during the absence of the 
venireman. The hearing was accordingly postponed. 
Because of one technical obstruction and another, the 
work of impaneling the trial jury was delayed until 

209 Four years later to a day, March 13, 1911, Ruef was taken 
to the penitentiary at San Quentin to begin service of his fourteen- 
year term for bribing a Supervisor. 



Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 189 

April 2. Even after that date there were interruptions, 
but the work of securing the jury 210 went on until May 
13, when the twelfth man to try Ruef was accepted. 

But while Ruef was making this brave fight in public 
to head off trial on the extortion charge, behind the 
scenes he was imploring representatives of the Prosecu- 
tion to grant him immunity from punishment in return 
for such confession as he might see fit to make. 

As early as March 20, Ruef sent word to Heney 
through Burns 211 that he was willing to make confes- 
sion, provided he were given immunity from punish- 

210 As the impaneling of the Ruef jury proceeded, that Ruef's 
nerve was breaking became apparent to all who saw him. The 
Chronicle, in its issue of March 18, 1907, thus describes his condi- 
tion: 

"Ruef's nerve is breaking down. He is a prey to doubts and 
fears which never troubled him in those days when he could see 
his political henchmen every day and bolster up their confidence 
in his ability to fight off the prosecution. Reports reach his ears 
of confessions of guilt on the part of some of his official puppets, 
of the sinister activities of Burns and his agents and treachery on 
the part of those whom he considered his most devoted adherents, 
and fill him with alarm. 

"It was different when he could hold his Sunday evening caucus 
with the members of the Board of Supervisors, and reassure them 
that all would be well. He knows the men he used in his political 
schemes and their weaknesses." 

211 Heney, in instructing Burns as to his policy regarding Ruef, 
took occasion to state to the detective his attitude toward the 
broken boss. In an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. 
Calhoun et al., No. 823, Heney sets forth that he told Burns: 
"Ruef was not a mere accessory or tool in the commission of these 
briberies. He is a man of extraordinary brain power, keen intelli- 
gence, fine education, with the choice of good environment, great 
power of persuasion over men, dominating personality, great shrewd- 
ness and cunning, coupled with a greedy and avaricious disposition. 
He has not been led into the commission of these crimes through 
weakness, but on the contrary has aided in the initiation of them 
and has joined hands with the most vicious and depraved elements 
in the city to secure unlawful protection for them in conducting 
their resorts of vice, and has joined hands with the special privi- 
lege seeking classes to place improper burdens upon the people of 
this city by granting franchises to public service corporations 
which ought never to have been granted, and by fixing rates which 
may be charged by them in excess of the amounts which such 
rates ought to be, and thus indirectly robbing the poor people of 
this city of a large part of their meagre earnings, and that to let 
Ruef go free of all punishment under such circumstances would be 
a crime against society." 



190 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 

ment for all crimes which he had committed or in 
which he had participated. 

Heney refused absolutely to consider any arrange- 
ment which involved complete immunity for Ruef. 
Negotiations on the basis of partial immunity fol- 
lowed. 212 

Heney, on the ground that he did not trust any of 
Ruef's lawyers, refused to discuss the matter with 
them, but stated that he would meet any lawyer in 
whom he had confidence to negotiate terms of partial 
immunity, provided that Ruef's representative were 
permitted : 

(1) To give the names of Ruef's accomplices who 
would be involved by his testimony. 

(2) To give the general nature of the offenses in 
which the various accomplices were involved. 

(3) To be prepared to assure Heney that Ruef's 
evidence against his accomplices could be corrobo- 
rated, and was sufficient to sustain a conviction. 

Ruef at first appeared to be well satisfied with the 
plan. He sent for a list of San Francisco attorneys, 
and set himself enthusiastically to the work of select- 
ing a list of the names of attorneys to be submitted 
to Heney. But he failed to make a selection, urging 
all the time to Burns that Heney accept Henry Ach. 
Ruef's insistence that he deal with Ach convinced 
Heney that Ruef was not acting in good faith, and he 



212 Running- through the affidavits which resulted from the dif- 
ferences between the forces of the prosecution and the defense con- 
cerning these negotiations, is a thread of suggestion that individual 
members of the prosecution differed as to the policy that should be 
followed toward Ruef. Burns, the detective, leaned toward granting 
him complete immunity. Heney was unalterably opposed to this 
course. Langdon, on the whole, sided with Heney. 



Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 191 

refused to yield to Burns's urging that he give way 
to Ruef in this particular and accept Ach as Ruef s 
representative. 213 

Under Ruef's temporizing, negotiations dragged 
until April 2, the day that, Ruef's technical obstruc- 
tions in the main set aside, his trial was to be resumed 
before Judge Dunne. 

On that day, a new actor appeared in the person 
of Dr. Jacob Nieto, a Jewish Rabbi of some promi- 
nence in San Francisco. 

Nieto, according to Burns's statement to Heney, 
asked the detective if he had any objection to his 
(Nieto's) calling upon Ruef. Nieto stated further 
that he believed that he could get Ruef to confess, and 
volunteered the theory that the "higher-ups" were en- 
deavoring to make Ruef a scapegoat for all the 
boodling that had been committed. 

Burns reported to Heney that he not only replied 
to Nieto that he had no objection to Nieto's visiting 
Ruef, but would be glad to have the Rabbi endeavor 
to get Ruef to tell the truth. 

When Burns told Heney of this conversation, 
Heney did not show himself so well pleased with the 
arrangements as Burns might have expected. The 
prosecutor took occasion to warn Burns against Nieto. 
Heney had already had unpleasant experience with 
Rabbi Nieto. 214 Nevertheless, Nieto visited Ruef. 

213 See Heney's affidavit in the matter of The People vs. Patrick 
Calhoun et al., No. 823. 

214 Nieto, according- to Heney, had endeavored to make it appear 
that race prejudice entered into the prosecution of Ruef. Heney, 
in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Calhoun et al., No. 
823, tells of Nieto's interference even when the Oliver Grand Jury 
was being impaneled. Heney says: "During the latter part of 



192 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 

Members of Ruef's family were called into consulta- 
tion. Conferences were held between Ach, Ruef and 
Burns. Heney states in his affidavit that he did not 
attend these meetings. Finally Burns brought Heney 
word that Ach and Ruef wanted citations to show 
that the District Attorney had authority to grant im- 
munity. Heney sent back word that he was confident 
that the District Attorney had no such power, but with 

October or the first week in November, 1906, while said Grand Jury 
was being impaneled, Dr. Jacob Nieto introduced himself to" me in 
the court room of Department No. 10, where I had noticed that 
he was a constant attendant and close observer of the proceedings 
connected with the impaneling of the Grand Jury. 

"Some days after he had introduced himself to me he stepped 
up to me, just as court had adjourned and after I had been exam- 
ining some of the grand jurors as to their qualifications, and said 
in substance: 

" 'Mr. Heney, it seems to me that you discriminate somewhat 
against the Jews in examining jurors, and I think that in your 
position you ought to be more careful not to exhibit any prejudice 
against a man on account of his religion.' 

"I asked what in particular I had done to cause him to criticise 
my conduct in that way, and he referred to some question" which 
I had asked a grand juror, but which I cannot now recollect. I 
then said to him in substance: 

" 'Why, Doctor, you are supersensitive. Some of the best friends 
I have in the world are Jews, and some of the best clients I ever 
had in my life were Jews, and I have no prejudice against any 
man merely on account of his religious belief. I am sorry that you 
have so misapprehended the purpose and motives of my questions 
to jurors.' 

"On a subsequent day, daring the time the Grand Jury was 
being impaneled. Dr. Nieto again approached me after an adjourn- 
ment of the court and again reproached me for having again shown 
prejudice or discrimination against some grand juror of the Jewish 
faith by the questions which I asked him * * * and I said to him 
in substance, in a very emphatic tone of voice: 'Dr. Nieto, I have 
heretofore told you that I have no prejudice against any man what- 
ever on account of his religion. All I am trying to do in this mat- 
ter is to get fair grand jurors, and I am just as willing to trust 
honest Jews as honest Christians, but I want to make sure that a 
man is honest, whether a Jew or Christian, and it looks to me as 
if you are trying to find some excuse to line up in opposition to this 
prosecution. I do not see why you need to seek for excuses if that 
is what you want to do. I am conscious of my own singleness of 
purpose and purity of purpose in examining grand jurors, and it is 
wholly immaterial to me, therefore, what you or anybody else may 
think of my method of questioning them.' " 

As a matter of fact Jews not only sat on the Oliver Grand Jury, 
but were among the most earnest and effective in sifting the graft 
scandal to the bottom. But that the false cry that Ruef was perse- 
cuted hern use he was a Jew influenced many of his fellow Jews in 
his favor is unquestionably true. 



Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 193 

the further statement that if the terms of the im- 
munity agreement were reasonable and in the interest 
of justice, that the Court, provided it had confidence 
in the District Attorney, would unquestionably follow 
such recommendation as that official might make. 

Burns brought back word to Heney that Ruef and 
Ach continued to insist upon complete immunity. 

Heney sent back an ultimatum to the effect that 
Ruef must plead guilty to the extortion case then 
on trial before Judge Dunne 215 and take his chances 
with the sentence that would be given him; that if 
Ruef did this, Heney was willing to arrange for com- 
plete immunity in all the other cases, provided Ruef 
showed to Heney's satisfaction that his testimony could 
be sufficiently corroborated and would sustain a con- 
viction of his accomplices other than Supervisors, in 
cases where members of the Board of Supervisors had 
been bribed. 

In the meantime, the work of selecting a jury to 
try Ruef on the extortion charge was going on with 
the deadly certainty of the slide of the knife of a 
guillotine. The second week of the examination of 
prospective jurors brought Dr. Nieto to Heney's office. 
Burns accompanied the Rabbi. 

Nieto 216 described himself as no particular friend 

215 This case was numbered from the indictment, 305. Schmitz 
was indicted jointly with Ruef in this indictment, and later was 
convicted under it and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. 
See Chapter XVI. The testimony at the Schmitz trial showed that 
Ruef had taken the extortion money from the French-Restaurant 
keepers, after Schmitz had acted with him to imperil the French- 
Restaurant keepers' liquor licenses, and had given part of the pro- 
ceeds of the enterprise to Schmitz. 

216 In his affidavit, Heney quotes Rabbi Nieto as saying in 
substance: "I do not care to get publicly mixed up in the Ruef 
ease, because among other things, I am not a particular friend of 
Ruef's, and am not interested in the matter as an individual but 



194 R ue * Pleads Guilty to Extortion 

of Ruef. He expressed the opinion that Ruef should 
be punished; that he should restore his ill-gotten gains. 
Heney stated to Nieto his attitude toward Ruef, as he 
had expressed it many times before. From that time 
on Dr. Nieto was a frequent caller at Heney's office, 
always for the purpose of discussing the question of 
Ruefs confession. During all these meetings Heney 
did not depart a jot from his original position that 
the extortion charge against Ruef should not be dis- 
missed. 

Later on, a second Rabbi, Dr. Bernard M. Kaplan, 
joined Nieto in these visits to Heney's office. Kaplan 
continued active in the negotiations to secure immunity 
for the fallen boss. 217 Finally Nieto, Kaplan and Ach 
sent word to Heney and Langdon by Burns that they 
desired to meet the District Attorney and his assistant 



only in the welfare of this community. I think that Ruef has 
grievously sinned against this community and that he can do a 
great deal to undo the wrongs which he has committed and to clear 
up the situation, and I have told him that it is his duty to himself 
and to his family and to the city of his birth to do so. I want you 
to understand, Mr. Heney, that I have not come here to ask you to 
let Ruef go free and without punishment. I think he ought to be 
punished, and I think he ought to give a large part of the money 
which he obtained from these corporations to the city to improve 
its streets. He ought to give $300,000 for that purpose, but Ruef 
thinks more of money than he does of his family, or even of his 
liberty, and I think he would rather go to the penitentiary than 
give up any very large amount of it." 

217 Heney, in his affidavit, makes the following statement of his 
Impression of Kaplan: "Dr. Kaplan appeared to be far more inter- 
ested in finding out just what would be done to Ruef, provided he 
plead guilty in the French Restaurant case than he was in the 
moral issue which was involved in the discussion, or in the beneficial 
effect which the testimony of Ruef might have upon the deplorable 
situation then existing in San Francisco on account of its municipal 
corruption. 

"This was evidenced more from his manner and form of ques- 
tioning than by anything which he said. I immediately became 
convinced that he was influenced by no motive or purpose other 
than that of getting Ruef off without any punishment if possible; 
but I also formed the opinion that he was honest and unsophisti- 
cated." ; | 



Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 195 

at Heney's office to discuss the immunity question. 
Heney and Langdon consented and the meeting was 
held in the latter part of April. 

Ach insisted upon complete immunity, but admitted 
that he had advised Ruef to take the best he could 
get. 218 Neither Langdon 219 nor Heney would consent 
to complete immunity, nor to material change in the 
stand which Heney had taken. Ach wanted assurance 
that the Judges before whom the bribery cases were 
pending would, on motion of the District Attorney, 
dismiss them as to Ruef, and suggested to Heney that 
he go to the judges and get them to consent to the 
proposed agreement. To this Heney made emphatic 
refusal, stating that the utmost he would do would be 
to go with Ach to Judges Dunne and Lawlor and ask 
each of them whether he had confidence in him 
(Heney) and what the Judge's general practice was in 
relation to matters of this kind, generally, when they 
came before his court. 

Other conferences 220 were held, at which Ach con- 
tinued to urge complete immunity for Ruef, which 

218 Heney, in his affidavit, states: "During the conversation Ach 
stated, in substance: 'You can't convict Ruef in this French Res- 
taurant case, but I realize that you are sure to convict him in some 
of the bribery cases, and I think it is useless for him to stand out 
and fight any longer, he had better take the best he can get, and 
I have told him so. He insists, however, that he ought not to be 
required to plead guilty in the French Restaurant case, or to submit 
to any punishment.' " 

219 In the course of the interview, Langdon stated to Ach and 
the two Rabbis that he had authorized Heney to conduct the nego- 
tiations for him, but that he wanted it to be distinctly understood 
by everybody that he had the final say in the matter and would 
exercise it, and that no agreement could be concluded without his 
personal sanction. 

220 Heney, in his affidavit describing these meetings, states that 
Ach, Kaplan and Nieto habitually came in the back way so they 
would not be seen by newspaper reporters who at the time fre- 
quented the front halls of the private residence in which Heney, 



196 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 

finally brought out emphatic statement from Heney 
that he did not trust Ruef and would enter into no 
agreement with him which did not leave it in the 
power of the District Attorney to send him to the 
penitentiary if at any time the District Attorney and 
himself concluded that during the progress of the mat- 
ters Ruef was acting in bad faith, or that the informa- 
tion which he might give was not of sufficient im- 
portance to the people of the city and the State equitably 
to entitle him to go without punishment. 

Heney takes pains all through his affidavit to make 
it clear that he treated with Nieto and Kaplan at all 
times upon the theory that they were Ruefs special 
pleaders and special representatives, who believed that 
Ruef was sure to be convicted upon as many of the 
felony bribery charges as the District Attorney tried 
him on, and that he would go to the penitentiary for a 
term of years equivalent to life. 

On the night of April 21, 221 when the work of se- 

after the fire, had his offices. Ach, Heney states, was desirous of 
not being - known as party to the negotiations. Heney in his affi- 
davit says: "In this same conversation (at the first conference) Ach 
said in substance: 'I want everybody here to agree that the fact 
that I participated in this conference, or had anything to do with 
advising Ruef to turn state's evidence, shall never be made known; 
it would absolutely ruin my business if it became known. A lot of 
the people whom Ruef will involve as accomplices are close friends 
of clients of mine. Of course I do not know just whom he will 
involve, but I do have a general idea. For instance, while he has 
npver told me so in so many words, T understand that he will involve 
William F. Herrin. Now just to illustrate to you how it would 
affect me in business if it was known that I participated in urging 
Ruef to do this I will tell you that I am attorney for one company, 
an oil company, that pays me ten thousand dollars a year as a 
salary for attending to its business, and TTerrin is one of the direc- 
tors of the company and undoubtedlv has sufficient influence with 
the other directors to take this client away from me. This is only 
one instance, and there are many others.' " 

2?i See affidavits of Francis J. Heney and Judge William P. 
T.awlor on file in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al. f 
No. 823. 



Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 197 

lecting a jury to try Ruef was nearing completion, 
Ach, Kaplan and Nieto visited Heney's office with 
assurance that Ruef had about concluded to accept 
Heney's terms. But, they explained, a new difficulty 
had come up. Rabbi Nieto was to leave San Fran- 
cisco the next morning for a trip to Europe. Neither 
he nor Dr. Kaplan was familiar with the practices 
of the courts, and while the judges would no doubt 
consider favorably any recommendation which was 
made by Mr. Langdon or by Mr. Heney, nevertheless, 
the two Rabbis would like to hear from Judge Dunne 
and Judge Lawlor statement as to what the practice 
of each of these judges was in that respect before 
they urged Ruef any further to accept the terms which 
had been offered him. As Dr. Nieto was to leave for 
Europe early in the morning, they wanted to see the 
judges that night. 

Heney assured his visitors that owing to the late- 
ness of the hour, he was afraid it would be impossible 
for them to see the judges before morning. But they 
insisted. Burns was finally sent out to find the judges 
if he could. He succeeded in locating Judge Lawlor 
at the theater. Judge Lawlor at first refused to see 
Nieto and Heney that night, stating that they could 
appear at his chambers the next morning. But Burns 
explained that Nieto had to leave for Europe the next 
morning, adding that he was sure that both Nieto and 
Heney would consider it a great favor if the Judge 
would see them that night, as the matter was very 
important. Lawlor finally consented to see them, but 
stated that he would do so only at his chambers, if, as 
he understood it, Heney and Nieto wanted to see him 



198 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 

about his duties as judge. Burns took word back to 
Heney's office that they could go to Judge Lawlor's 
chambers, where the Judge would go as soon as the 
theater was over. 

Heney, Kaplan and Nieto met Lawlor at his cham- 
bers. Heney went straight at the purpose of the 
meeting. 

"Judge," Heney sets forth in his affidavit he said 
in substance, "we come up here tonight to ask you what 
the practice of your court is in criminal cases in rela- 
tion to recommendations which may be made by the 
District Attorney?" 

Judge Lawlor replied in effect that the District 
Attorney represents the public in the prosecution of 
crime, and that under the law it was the practice for 
that official to. submit to the court recommendations 
concerning persons who turn state's evidence; that the 
law vests the authority in the Court to determine all 
such recommendations and that it is* proper for the 
District Attorney to make them ; that such recommenda- 
tions should be carefully considered by the Court; and 
if they are in the interests of justice they should be 
followed, otherwise not. Judge Lawlor stated further 
that he would not consider or discuss any cause or 
case of any individual except upon a full hearing in 
open court, and that it would be determined alone upon 
what was so presented. Final decision, he said, would 
in every case rest with the Court, and if the application 
was in the interest of justice, it would be granted, but 
if not it would be denied. 

Immediately after having made this statement 



Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 199 

Judge Lawlor excused himself and left the building. 

Judge Dunne, when finally found by Burns, objected 
as strongly as had Judge Lawlor to going to the court- 
room that night, but finally yielded to the same repre- 
sentations as had been made to Judge Lawlor. 

All parties at the meeting with Judge Dunne at the 
courtroom were agreed and the incident was quickly 
over. 

Heney asked the Judge, in effect, to state for the 
benefit of Nieto and Kaplan the practice of his court 
in criminal matters in relation to any recommendations 
which may be made by the District Attorney's office in 
the interest of justice when the defendant becomes a 
witness on behalf of the State against his accomplices. 
Heney stated further that the two Rabbis would also 
like to know whether or not Judge Dunne had confi- 
dence in District Attorney Langdon and himself. 

Judge Dunne replied in substance: "I have con- 
fidence in you, Mr. Heney, and in the District Attorney, 
and while I have confidence in the District Attorney, 
whenever a recommendation or suggestion is made by 
him in a case pending in my department, it is my 
practice to entertain and be guided by it, provided, of 
course, it is in the interest or furtherance of justice." 

Kaplan wanted to know what the course would be 
should a man plead guilty and afterwards ask to 
change his plea. 

"You have heard what I have said, gentlemen, as 
to my practice," replied Judge Dunne. "Of course, in 
all cases of such recommendations, and which I insist 
shall always be made in open court, whenever the Dis- 
trict Attorney fails to convince me that he is well ad- 



200 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 

vised, or that good and sufficient grounds exist for 
his motions, it must be remembered that the final de- 
termination must always rest with me. But, of course, 
I would give great weight to any recommendation 
either you, Mr. Heney, or Mr. Langdon might make." 

From the courtroom Nieto, Kaplan and Burns went 
to Ruef, but Ruef still insisted that he should not 
plead guilty to the extortion charge, "backed and 
filled," as Burns expressed it. 

Ruef sent word to Heney by Burns, asking an inter- 
view. But this Heney refused to grant, bluntly stating 
that should he meet Ruef, Ruef would misrepresent 
anything that he might say. Heney instructed Burns 
to tell Ruef that he could accept the proposition that 
he had made to him or let it alone as he pleased, that 
no more time would be wasted on him; that trial of 
the extortion charge would be pressed to conclusion 
and regardless of whether conviction were had or not, 
Ruef would be tried immediately on one of the bribery 
charges. 

Nevertheless, the persistent Ruef got an interview 
with Heney. He secured it in this way : 

After Heney had retired on the night of May 1st, 
Burns called him up on the telephone, to state that if 
Heney would give Ruef a moment's interview that 
Burns was confident that Ruef would accept Heney 's 
proposition. Heney granted the hearing. 

Ruef plead for complete immunity. He argued that 
for him to plead guilty to the extortion charge would 
weaken his testimony in the bribery cases. He urged 
that public opinion would approve his release. He 
charged Heney with being prejudiced against him. 



Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 201 

Heney listened to him patiently, but refused to con- 
sider any suggestion that he alter the original propo- 
sition. 

By this time ten jurors had been secured to try 
Ruef. Ruef begged for an interview with Langdon. 
It was granted, with Heney and others present. The 
same ground was gone over again ; the same denials 
made. And then Heney bluntly told Ruef in sub- 
stance: "You must plead guilty in case No. 305 and 
take your chances on the sentence which will be im- 
posed in that case. This is our ultimatum and you 
must agree to this before the first witness is sworn in 
case No. 305, or we will withdraw our proposition and 
will never again renew it, or any other proposition 
looking to any sort of leniency or immunity for you.'" 222 

The day following, Burns brought word to Heney 
that Ruef had concluded to accept the Prosecution's 
proposition, and had begun his confession by reciting 
the particulars of the United Railroad's bribery. Burns 
recited what Ruef had told him. Burns 's enthusiasm 
suffered a shock from Heney's cool analysis of Ruef's 
statement. 223 

Heney pointed out that Ruef had made no revelation 
which the Prosecution had not known before, and 



222 See Heney's affidavit in the case of The People vs. Patrick 
Calhoun et als., No. 823. 

223 Ruef in this confession to Burns stated that he had received 
$200,000 from General Tirey L. Ford, head of the United Railroads 
law department. Of this amount, he said $50,000 he had given to 
Schmitz and retained $50,000 for himself. Ruef, five years later, in 
his story "The Road I Traveled," published in the San Francisco 
Bulletin, again stated that he had received $200,000 from Ford, of 
which he gave to Schmitz $50,000, to Gallagher his share for the 
Supervisors, and retained $50,000 for himself. Gallagher received 
$85,000. This leaves a balance of $15,000 which Mr. Ruef does not 
account for. 



202 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 

further that Ruef was certainly concealing part at 
least of what had occurred between him and General 
Ford. Heney was now convinced of Ruef's treachery. 224 
Ruef's future course tended to strengthen this convic- 
tion. 

Having agreed to make full statement of his con- 
nection with the bribing of the Supervisors, Ruef hag- 
gled over the form of immunity contract. He endeav- 
ored to force upon the Prosecution a contract of his 
own drawing. Failing in that he tried to persuade 
Heney and Langdon to enter into a stipulation that he 
might withdraw his plea of guilty in the extortion case. 

In neither move was he successful. Heney refused 
to depart a jot from his original proposition. Ruef 
finally accepted the immunity contract which Heney had 
submitted. 225 

Even after the immunity contract had been signed, 
Ruef continued to urge Burns that he be not required 
to plead guilty. The prosecution was not sure what 
Ruef would do. The examination of jurors to try him 
went on. The jury was completed on May 13, 226 and 

224 it is significant to note in this connection that Heney did 
not call Ruef as a witness before the Grand Jury in the United 
Railroads cases until after the Grand Jury had found indictments 
against the officials of that corporation. In the opinion of the 
Grand Jurors, the testimony, exclusive of that of Ruef, justified 
these indictments. 

225 The immunity contract signed by Ruef and the District Attor- 
ney will be found in full in the appendix. 

226 At the completion of the Ruef Jury, the Chronicle, issue of 
May 15, 1907, said: 

"The Ruef jury is complete and we are now in a way to learn 
all the truth about the particular crime for which Ruef is this time 
on trial, but which, compared with most other crimes for which he 
has been indicted, is a mere peccadillo. That Ruef got the money 
is proved, for he has confessed. His defense, of course, will be 
that the French-Restaurant proprietors voluntarily presented him 
with it. The state will have to prove, in order to secure a convic- 
tion, that they did not give the money voluntarily, but yielded it 



Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 203 

was sworn. But the actual taking of testimony was 
delayed by Ruef demanding change of venue from Judge 
Dunne's court. This motion after the filing of numer- 
ous affidavits by both sides, was denied. 

However, Ruef s last motion delayed the taking of 
testimony for two days more. 

Upon Judge Dunne's ruling the next move would 
have been the placing of witnesses on the stand. But 
before this could be done, Ruef whispered to his at- 
torney, Ach. Ach arose and addressed the Court. 

"I am requested by our client, your Honor," Ach 
said in substance, "that it is his desire to have a con- 
ference with his counsel. I would like to draw your 
Honor's attention to the fact that up to this time Mr. 
Ruef has not had a single opportunity to confer with his 
counsel alone. If the elisor, or the guards, were not in 
the same room they were quite close by. I think, in 
view of this fact, that we might be granted an adjourn- 
ment until say two o'clock of this afternoon so that Mr. 
Ruef may have this privilege of conferring with us." 

Heney promptly denied Ach's statement. "What 
Mr. Ach has stated is not a fact," said Heney. "Mr. 
Ruef has always been granted privacy in his conference 
with counsel." 

On Langdon's suggestion, a half hour's recess was 

up under threats which they believed it to be in his power to exe- 
cute. If the state fails to prove that Ruef will stand before the 
community merely as a moral leper, loathsome to be sure, and 
despicable almost beyond human conception, but yet not proved 
guilty of that for which the law prescribes punishment in, state's 
prison. If proper proof cannot be made he must, of course, be 
acquitted of this crime and at once put on trial for another. Noth- 
ing is gained by society by the conviction even of the most unmiti- 
gated scoundrel on insufficient testimony. But when the proof is 
sufficient the salvation of society demands punishment, and more 
particularly of punishment of the rich criminal." 



204 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 

granted to allow Ruef to confer with counsel. With 
his attorneys, Henry Ach, Samuel M. Shortridge, Frank 
J. Murphy and Judge Fairall, Ruef went into Judge 
Dunne's chambers for conference. 

On their return to the courtroom, Ach and Short- 
ridge, with Ruef's consent, withdrew from the case on 
the ground that they could not agree with Ruef as to 
the manner in which the case should be conducted. 
Fairall and Murphy remained by their client. 

And then Ruef, the tears streaming down his face, 
addressed the Court. He stated his intent to acknowl- 
edge whatever there may have been of wrong or mis- 
take in his record, and pledged himself, so far as it lay 
in his power to make it right. 227 

227 Ruef'p statement was in full as follows: 

"If your honor please, with the permission of the court, I desire 
to make a statement. I do so after only a short consultation with 
my attorneys, to whom I have only within the last half hour dis- 
closed my determination, and against their express protest. "I take 
this occasion to thank them for their services, fidelity and friend- 
ship. Notwithstanding the Court's finding yesterday that this trial 
might safely be carried on without serious injury to my health, 
physical or mental, I wish to assure you that my personal condition 
is such that I am at the present time absolutely unable to bear for 
two or three months daily the strain of an actual trial of this case, 
the constant, continual, nightly preparations therefor, the necessary 
consultation and conversation with my attorneys in regard thereto, 
to say nothing of other cares and responsibilities. 

"Moreover, the strain of these proceedings upon those whom I 
hold nearest and dearest of all on earth has been so grave and 
severe that as a result of these prosecutions their health has all 
been undermined, they are on the verge of immediate collapse and 
their lives are indeed now actually in the balance. 

"I have occupied a somewhat prominent position in this city of 
my birth, in which I have lived all my life, where are all my ties and 
interests, whence, when the time shall come, I hope to pass into 
the eternal sleep. I have borne an honored name. In my private 
and in my professional life there has been no stain. In my public 
affiliations, until after the municipal campaign of 1905 and the elec- 
tion of the present Board of Supervisors, the abhorrent charges of 
the press to the contrary notwithstanding, no action of mine ever 
gave just ground for adverse criticism or deserved censure; but 
the assaults of the press and its failure to credit honesty of pur- 
pose, a desire to hold together a political organization which had 
been built up with much effort, the means of otherwise holding 
them, did after the election of this Board of Supervisors in a meas- 



Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 205 

"I desire," concluded Ruef, "to withdraw my plea 
of not guilty heretofore entered, and to enter the con- 
trary plea, and at the proper time submit to the Court 
further suggestions for its consideration. 228 

ure influence me and the high ideals for which I had heretofore 
striven. 

"During the past few weeks I have thought deeply and often 
of this situation, its causes and conditions. To offer excuses now 
would be foll}^. To make an effort at some reparation for the public 
good is, however, more than possible; to assist in making more 
difficult, if not impossible, the system which dominates our public 
men and corrupts our politics will be a welcome task. 

"I have decided that whatever energy or abilities I possess for 
the future shall be devoted even in the humblest capacity to restor- 
ing the ideals which have been lowered; shall, as soon as oppor- 
tunity be accorded, be re-enlisted on the side of good citizenship 
and integrity. May it be allotted to me at some time hereafter to 
have at least some small part in re -establishment on a clear, sane 
basis, a plane of high civic morality, just reciprocal relations be- 
tween the constantly struggling constituent element of our govern- 
mental and industrial life. 

"In the meantime I begin by earnestness of purpose, a purpose 
to make the greatest sacrifice which can befall a human being of my 
disposition to make, to acknowledge whatever there may have been 
of wrong or mistake and so far as may be within my power to make 
it right. 

"I reached this final determination last night after careful reflec- 
tion and deliberation. Where duty calls I intend to follow, whither 
hereafter the path of my life may lead and however unpleasant and 
painful may be the result. I make this statement so that the Court 
and the whole world may know at least the motives which have 
guided me in the step I am about to take. 

"As an earnest I have determined to make a beginning, I am 
not guilty of the offense charged in this indictment. I ask now, 
however, that this jury be dismissed from further consideration of 
this case. I desire to withdraw my plea of not guilty heretofore 
entered and to enter the contrary plea, and at the proper time sub- 
mit to the Court further suggestions for its consideration." 

228 The Chronicle, in its issue of May 16, said of Ruef's confes- 
sions: 

"Abraham Ruef should have thought of his family before he 
entered upon his career of crime. They are innocent and the public 
need not, as indeed it cannot, withhold its sympathy for them. The 
most terrible punishment which is inflicted on such criminals is the 
distress which their crimes brings upon the innocent persons who 
have been accustomed to respect and honor them. But it is the 
inexorable doom which crime brings upon itself. 

"For Ruef himself the only sympathy possible is that which one 
might feel for a wolf which, having devastated the sheep fold, has 
been pursued, brought to bay and, after a long fight, finally disposed 
of. It is not a case in which the safety of society permits leniency 
to be shown. Ruef has corrupted every branch of the city govern- 
ment which he could get hold of and brought the city almost to the 
verge of ruin. Seldom has a man occupying an unofficial station 
in life been able to achieve so much evil. It will be many a year 



206 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 

"If the defendant wishes to change his plea of 'not 
guilty' to 'guilty,' " said Heney, "the prosecuting at- 
torney will consent to the discharge of the jury, as he 
requests, but we think the indictment should first be 
re-read so that he may enter the plea as he wishes." 

The indictment was read. 

"What is your plea?" asked Judge Dunne of the 
prisoner. 

And Ruef replied, "Guilty." 229 

before San Francisco can outlive the shame which the man Ruef 
has brought upon her. 

"He has not been ingenuous even in his confession, for while 
pleading guilty as charged, he professes to be not guilty of this 
particular crime — meaning merely by that that he did not extort the 
money by threats within the meaning of the law. Witnesses, how- 
ever, would have sworn that he did so. It is unthinkable that such 
sums should have been paid him voluntarily by the restaurant keep- 
ers. All that Ruef can mean by his profession of 'innocence' while 
pleading guilty, is a claim that he succeeded in terrifying the 
restaurant men into submitting to blackmail without the use of 
words which the law would construe as a threat. There is no moral 
difference between what Ruef would claim that he did and the 
crime to which he has pleaded guilty. 

"Ruef also shows his disingenuousness by attributing his situa- 
tion to 'the assaults of the press.' Doubtless he has been assaulted 
by the press. But the press has accused him of nothing but what 
he has confessed and intimated. What fault has he to find with 
that? Shall the press remain silent while thieves plunder a dis- 
tressed city and rob it of its good name? Ruef fought the forces of 
decency until he could fight no longer. No man is strong enough to 
stand up against the wrath of an outraged community. His physical 
collapse was inevitable and the only mantle which charity can throw 
over him is that his physical weakness broke down his mental fac- 
ulties and caused the self-contradictions in what is a virtual confes- 
sion of all that he has been charged with." 

229 The position of the Prosecution was most difficult. Every 
department of the municipal government, with the exception of the 
District Attorney's office, was controlled by the corrupt administra- 
tion, of which Schmitz was the official head. The necessity of deal- 
ing with Ruef, and the question of immunity arose primarily and 
almost entirely, from the fact that there was practically no evidence 
against Schmitz, except in the French restaurant case, and that 
there was no evidence in that case that Schmitz received any of 
the money which was collected by Ruef. Consequently without 
Ruef's testimony no conviction of Schmitz was possible at all. except 
in the French restaurant case, and in that case his conviction was 
not at all certain. Union Labor party adherents were naturally 
unwilling to believe Schmitz guilty until he had been so proven. 
The big public service corporations and Herrin of the Southern 
Pacific were all still in sympathy with him and ready to back him 



Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 207 

for re-election. An election was approaching- early in November. 
The redemption of the city depended upon taking its control away 
from Schmitz. The Police Commission and the Board of Public 
Utilities were part of the corrupt and discredited administration. 
During the rebuilding of San Francisco it was of vital importance 
to have these two boards honest. Hence the Prosecution felt justi- 
fied in going to unusual length to secure the additional testimony 
against Schmitz, which ought to make his conviction certain in the 
French restaurant case, and thus immediately depose him from office 
and place the entire city government in the hands of honest men. 
The new Mayor could appoint a new Board of Supervisors, new 
Police Commission and new Board of Public Works, as well as 
many other important officials; and such new Mayor and Supervisors 
would be reasonably sure of re-election. Agents of the Public 
Service corporations realized to the full extent the importance of 
preventing the conviction of Schmitz, and of forcing the prosecution 
to submit to the appointment of a new Board of Supervisors before 
any conviction of Schmitz could possibly be secure, so that the new 
Board of Supervisors, so selected through Schmitz by themselves, 
would have the power of appointing the new Mayor in case Schmitz 
were convicted. This new Mayor could appoint a new Police Com- 
mission and it in turn a new Chief of Police, and the new officials 
would be controlled by the same interests which controlled the old 
ones. 



CHAPTER XVI. 
Schmitz Convicted of Extortion. 

One week after Ruef had plead guilty to the charge 
of extortion, his co-defendant, Mayor Eugene E. 
Schmitz, indicted jointly with Ruef, was brought to 
trial, under indictment No. 305, to which Ruef had 
entered his plea of guilty. 

Hiram W. Johnson and J. J. Dwyer appeared with 
Heney and Langdon for the Prosecution. The defense 
was represented by the firm of Campbell, Metson & 
Drew, assisted by John J. Barrett and Charles Fairall, 
all prominent at the San Francisco bar. 

The preliminaries were not unlike those of the 
Ruef trial, which, at the point where testimony would 
have been taken, was stopped by Ruef's plea of guilty. 
There were the same allegations of bias, the same at- 
tempts to secure change of venue, the same appeals to 
the higher courts in habeas corpus proceedings. But 
these moves availed Schmitz as little as they had Ruef. 
Point by point the upper courts found against the in- 
dicted Mayor; step by step he was dragged to pro- 
ceedings before a trial jury. 

The selection of the jury occupied two weeks. But 
with the swearing of the twelfth juror, Schmitz did not 
stop proceedings with tearful confession and a plea of 
guilty. Doggedly the troubled Mayor let the trial go 
on. The Prosecution called its witnesses to the stand. 



Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 209 

One by one Schmitz's former associates as well as 
the restaurant men from whom, through Ruef, he had 
received money, took the stand and told the sordid story 
of the corruption of the Schmitz-Ruef administration. 

The specific charge under which Schmitz was tried 
was that of extortion from Joseph Malfanti, Charles 
Kelb and William Lafrenz, proprietors of Delmonico's 
Restaurant, of $1,175. The sum was Delmonico's share of 
the $5,000 paid to Ruef in 1905, by the French-restau- 
rant keepers to prevent the liquor licenses, without 
which their establishments could not be successfully con- 
ducted, being taken from them. 

The testimony showed: 

(1) That Schmitz had used his power as Mayor 
over the Police Commissioners to compel them in the 
first instance, to withhold French-restaurant liquor li- 
censes, and that later in the latter part of January, 
1905, he had exerted himself as actively and effectively 
to have the licenses granted, even removing from office 
Police Commissioner Hutton, who was standing out 
against the French restaurants. 

(2) That attorneys, appearing before the Police 
Commissioners, to present the claims of the French- 
restaurant keepers for licenses, were unable to secure 
a hearing. One of these testified to having advised his 
client, and other French-restaurant keepers that "there 
is only one man who can help you, and that is Mr. 
Ruef." 

(3) That a French-restaurant keeper who owed 
Ruef money, and at whose establishment Ruef had his 
headquarters, approached his fellow French-restaurant 



210 Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 

keepers and told them that for $7,000 a year Ruef 
would represent them and keep them secure in their 
business for two years. The $7,000 demand was finally 
reduced to $5,000, $10,000 for the two years. 

(4) That the French-restaurant keepers raised 
$8,000 of the $10,000 demanded, and sent it to Ruef, 
$5,000 the first year and $3,000 the next. 

(5) That Ruef refused to receive anything but cur- 
rency, would give no receipt for the money, and would 
deal with one man only. 

(6) That Ruef claimed to receive the money as a 
fee from the "French Restaurant Keepers' Association," 
but that no such association existed in San Francisco. 

(7) That after the French-restaurant keepers had 
satisfied Ruef, Ruef appeared for them before the Police 
Commissioners and, after Commissioner Hutton had 
been removed from office by Mayor Schmitz, secured 
for them their licenses. 230 

Having established its case thus far, the Prosecution 
rested. 

The move was unlooked for. Ruef was known to 
have confessed ; it had been confidently expected that 
he would be placed on the stand to answer the question, 
in whatever form it could be forced into the record : 
Did you divide the money which you received from 
the French-restaurant keepers with Mayor Schmitz? 

But Ruef was not put on the stand. The public 
marveled, but those behind the scenes knew that Ruef 
was not the willing witness for the Prosecution that the 
public thought. 

230 For fuller discussion of this testimony see Chapter "Ruef and 
Schmitz Indicted." 



Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 211 

Ruef had confessed to Heney that he had given 
half the $8,000 which he had received from the French- 
restaurant keepers to Mayor Schmitz. But Heney, 
having trapped Ruef in deception, had very good rea- 
son for being distrustful of him. 

Ruef, forever seeking to justify himself, had told 
Heney that he had refused to appear before the Police 
Commissioners on behalf of the French-restaurant keep- 
ers, until the San Francisco Bulletin had challenged 
him to dare represent them, and claim the money he 
received from them was a fee. Ruef insisted that the 
Bulletin's challenge led him to take the case. 

In this Heney trapped Ruef in his trickery. 

Ruef's purported contract with the mythical "French 
Restaurant Keepers' Association," under which the 
French restaurant keepers had paid him $8000, bore 
date of January 6. Ruef insisted to Heney that January 
6 was the true date upon which the contract was 
signed. The oral agreement had been made January 5. 
Heney then confronted Ruef with files of the Bulletin 
which showed that the Bulletin had not mentioned Ruef 
as appearing on behalf of the French-restaurant keepers 
until January 7. This was one day after Ruef had 
signed the purported contract with the mythical French 
Restaurant Keepers' Association. 

A stormy scene between Ruef and Heney followed 
this exposure. 231 Heney charged Ruef with falsehood 



231 "You have not," said Heney to the trapped boss, "told us 
all the truth in the United Railroads case. You have not told us 
all the truth in the case of the gas rate matter. You have not told 
us all the truth in the Bay Cities Water deal. You have not told 
us all the truth about the deal with Herrin in relation to the dele- 
gates from this city to the Santa Cruz convention. You have not 
told us all the truth in the telephone franchise matter. You lied to 



212 Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 

and deception, and declared the immunity agreement 
canceled. Heney then ordered Ruef from the room, and 
did not, until long after the Schmitz trial had closed, 
have conversation with him again. 

When Schmitz's trial opened, District Attorney 
Langdon, Hiram Johnson, all the rest of Heney's asso- 
ciates, urged that Ruef be put on the stand, insisting 
that the case would be greatly strengthened if it could 
be proved by Ruef that Schmitz had received half the 
extortion money. 

Heney conceded the strength of this contention, but 
held, on the other hand, that Ruef would lie so much 
about other things that he would do more harm than 
good to the case. Personally, Heney insisted, he wanted 
nothing to do with him. 

Thus, in making his opening statement to the jury 
in the Schmitz case, Heney refrained from stating that 
he expected to prove Schmitz received any part of the 
money which had been paid to Ruef. 

But of the break between Heney and Ruef, the pub- 

us in the Parkside matter, and I caught you at it before the Grand 
Jury. You tried to protect Will Crocker in that matter and told 
Burns before you went into the Grand Jury room that you had never 
spoken to him on the subject. You swore to the same thing in the 
Grand Jury room until you cunningly guessed from my questions 
that Will Crocker himself had told the truth to the Grand Jury, and 
that I was getting you in a bad hole; you then suddenly pretended 
to just remember that you had held one conversation with Will 
Crocker on the trolley franchise matter at the Crocker National 
Bank that lasted a half an hour, and that you had held another 
conversation on the street with Will Crocker on the same subject at 
the corner of California and Kearny streets, which lasted an hour. 
You had not forgotten either of those talks, but you did not think 
Will Crocker would testify to them and you wanted to curry favor 
with him by thus making him think you wanted to protect him, and 
you did it because he is rich and powerful. You wanted his influ- 
ence hereafter to help keep you out of trouble, because you have no 
idea of acting in good faith with the prosecution. I don't believe 
you ever acted in good faith with anybody in your life, but you 
have over-reached yourself this time." — See Affidavit of Francis J. 
Heney, in The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823. 



Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 213 

lie knew nothing. San Francisco looked to see Ruef 
put on the stand. When the Prosecution rested without 
calling this supposedly star witness, even the Defense 
was taken by surprise and had to ask continuance until 
the following day before calling witnesses. 

Schmitz took the stand in his own behalf. He denied 
the statements which his former Police Commissioners 
had made against him. The Mayor's story of denial 
was soon told. Heney, on cross-examination asked: 

"Did Ruef pay you any part of the $5,000 that has 
been testified he received from the French restaurants?" 
and Schmitz replied: "I didn't know that Mr. Ruef got 
any $5,000, nor did I receive any part of it." 232 

And then, in detail, Schmitz denied that he had 
received any money from Ruef, or had had any conver- 
sation with him regarding a "fee" which Ruef had re- 
ceived from the French-restaurant keepers. 

In rebuttal, Ruef was called to the stand. 233 "Did 
you," questioned Heney, "in January or February, 1905, 
in this City and County of San Francisco, at the house 
of Eugene E. Schmitz, the defendant, at number 2849 
Fillmore street, give to Eugene E. Schmitz any money, 
and if so how much, and in what kind of money?" 

"I did," answered Ruef, "$2500 in currency." 



232 This answer came in the face of strong objection from 
Schmitz's counsel. Mr. Campbell went so far as to direct Schmitz 
not to answer. Mr. Barrett's objection was expressed in a way 
that caused Judge Dunne to order him to his seat. The several 
objections were overruled and the witness was directed to answer 
the question. 

233 Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of The Peo_ple vs. 
Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823, says of Ruef's appearance: "I did 
not at any time see or speak to Ruef, except when he was on the 
witness stand, and then only from a distance and in open court in 
the regular course of the trial and in the performance of my duty as 
a prosecuting officer." 



214 Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 

"Did you, then and there, tell him," pursued Heney, 
"that it was his share of the money you had received 
from the five French-restaurant keepers?" "I didn't 
say to him," replied Ruef, "that it was his share of the 
money which I had received from the French restau- 
rants. I did say to him that I had received from the 
French restaurants the sum of $5,000, and that if he 
would accept half of it I should be glad to give it to 
him. Thereupon I gave it to him." 

Ruef testified further to paying Schmitz $1500 early 
in 1906, half of the second payment made to him by the 
French-restaurant keepers. 

The jurors before whom Mayor Schmitz was tried 
took one ballot only. They found the defendant guilty 
of extortion as charged in the indictment. 

Following the verdict, Schmitz, who eighteen months 
before had, for the third time been elected Mayor of 
San Francisco, was, as a convicted felon, confined in 
the county jail. 234 



234 Where Schmitz spent the night of Thursday, June 13, the 
night of his conviction, is a matter of dispute. Sheriff O'Neil insists 
that he spent the night in jail. This has been denied. The state- 
ment has been made, apparently on good authority, that all of 
Friday following, Schmitz, accompanied by Dominic Beban, a deputy 
sheriff and State Senator from San Francisco, was about town in an 
automobile. But on Saturday, Judge Dunne warned the sheriff that 
Schmitz was to be treated as any other prisoner. After that day, 
pending his appeal to the higher courts, Schmitz was confined in 
the county jail. Attorney J. C. Campbell made a hard fight to keep 
his client out of jail. Among other things, Mr. Campbell held that 
the Mayor had so much official business to attend to that it was 
practically necessary for him to be in his office all the time for the 
next month. 

Schmitz, under this conviction, was sentenced to serve five years 
in the penitentiary. 



CHAPTER XVII. 
Schmitz Ousted From Office. 

The confession of the Supervisors to bribery had no 
sooner become known than angling for control of the 
municipal government under its prospective reorganiza- 
tion began. 235 

The public-service corporation that had during the 
1905 municipal campaign contributed to the campaign 
funds of both the Union Labor party and the opposing 
"Reform" fusion organization, had no care as to who 
reorganized, or in what name the reorganization was 
accomplished, so long as they continued in control. 
These corporations had larger interest in public affairs 
than ever; there was prospect of their officials being 
indicted for felonies. But so long as Schmitz continued 
to be Mayor, neither those who aimed to reorganize for 
the best interests of San Francisco, nor those who were 



235 As early as March 20, 1907, two days after the Supervisors 
gave their confession to the Grand Jury, The Chronicle touched 
upon the growing resistance to the prosecution. It said: 

"In the leading political clubs there is talk of Governor Gillett 
removing Mayor Schmitz and appointing a successor. This is in the 
line of gossip, however, for there is a legal question involved, the 
framers of the municipal Charter having provided no means for the 
removal of the head of the municipal government should he be found 
criminally derelict. There is also some talk of Schmitz resigning 
if Heney will vaccinate him and render him immune from punish- 
ment for his offenses, as he is said to have done with the Super- 
visors. Another angle of the gossip in this regard is that the Mayor 
will appoint a Board of Supervisors picked by prominent merchants 
and professional men who have organized for the purpose of redeem- 
ing San Francisco from the toils of the grafters." 



216 Schmitz Ousted from Office 

plotting to continue the old order with new men, in 
the interests of the corporations, could act. The old 
order controlled Schmitz ; the opposition, having whipped 
confessions out of the Supervisors, controlled the board. 
Neither element could undertake reorganization until 
in control of both Mayor's office and Supervisors. 

This deadlock was brought about by charter pro- 
visions empowering the Board of Supervisors to fill 
vacancies occurring in the mayoralty office, and pro- 
viding that the Mayor shall fill vacancies on the Board 
of Supervisors. 

Had Mayor Schmitz resigned, the Supervisors, 
controlled by District Attorney Langdon, would have 
elected his successor. This would have given the Prose- 
cution the Mayor as well as the Supervisors. On the 
other hand, had the Supervisors resigned, then Mayor 
Schmitz would have appointed as their successors men 
in accord with him and with his policies. Schmitz could 
then have resigned and the Supervisors of his appoint- 
ment would have named his successor. This would 
have permitted the corrupt element to continue the old 
order in defiance of the Prosecution. Thus, so long as 
Schmitz held the office of Mayor, the Prosecution, la- 
boring for good government, could not permit the bribe- 
taking Supervisors to resign. On the other hand, those 
who had furnished the bribe money did not dare permit 
Schmitz to give up his office. 

In this astonishing situation, that bribe-givers might 
not gain the upper hand, it was necessary that the six- 
teen confessed bribe-taking Supervisors should continue 
in the offices which they had betrayed, so long as 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 217 

Schmitz's power to appoint their successors continued.; 136 
There were, too, further complications. The Prose- 
cution could and did secure the discharge from munici- 
pal positions of Ruef's satellites who held their places 
under the Board of Supervisors. Thus, soon after the 
Supervisors had confessed, Charles Keane, 237 Clerk of 
the Board, was forced from his position. On the other 
hand, the old-time Schmitz-Ruef followers who owed 
their appointments to the Mayor, continued secure in 

236 The Chronicle, in its issue of April 3, in discussing this phase 
of the situation, said: 

"The spectacle of the entire legislative body of a city confessing 
to the acceptance of great bribes is astonishing. Their continuance 
in office and consultation with the good citizens as to the best 
methods of restoring good government is unique. In many parts of 
the country there is outspoken disapproval of the course which is 
being taken, and loud declarations that if there were any good citi- 
zenship in San Francisco the confessed rogues would be driven out 
of office and hustled into the penitentiary. It is declared that in 
granting 'immunity' to these Supervisors the city is again dis- 
graced. Of course, all this is absurd. In the first place, there is no 
evidence and little probability that immunity has been promised to 
anybody. Secondly, if the present Supervisors should resign Schmitz 
would promptly fill their places with men whom he can more im- 
plicitly trust but who would not be subject to indictment or' in any 
way amenable to decent influence. As for Schmitz, he will remain 
Mayor until he is convicted of crime. The public does not know 
how that conviction is to be got. It is supposed that some Super- 
visor can give part of the necessary evidence, but no Supervisor can 
be compelled to give any evidence at all, and they probably would 
give none, if driven out. They are not obliged to criminate them- 
selves. As for Schmitz, he is still defiant. He apparently does not 
believe that under the legal rules of evidence he can be convicted of 
what he evidently did. The journals which contrast our slow move- 
ment with the swift punishment which befell briber and bribed when 
the Broadway street railroad franchise was purchased doubtless ao 
not understand that the laws and court procedure in California are 
designed not to convict criminals, but to aid their escape from jus- 
tice, and that when Jake Sharp bought the New York Aldermen he 
did not also buy the authority which filled vacancies in the Board. 
As the situation in this city is unique, so, also, must be our methods 
of dealing with it. It may be that every Supervisor ought to be 
promptly indicted but it is certain that that is the one thing most 
ardently desired by the innumerable company of grafters outside 
the board. And it may not be but to help them." 

237 Keane had two champions on the board, however, Supervisors 
J. J. O'Neil and O. A. Tveitmoe. They resisted Keane's discharge, 
denouncing it as unwarranted and cowardly. Mayor Schmitz vetoed 
the resolution removing Keane. The Supervisors, however, adopted 
the resolution over the Mayor's veto. 



2i 8 Schmitz Ousted from Office 

their jobs. Thus, former Supervisor Duffey, appointed 
by Schmitz to head the Board of Public Works, con- 
tinued in that position, although involved by Gallagher 
in Gallagher's confession of the bribery transactions. 

The Chief of Police held office under the appointment 
of the Board of Police Commissioners. But Schmitz 
controlled the commissioners. The chief had been in- 
dicted with Schmitz and Ruef. The city was clamoring 
for his removal. But in spite of protests, Schmitz's 
influence kept the indicted chief in his place at the head 
of the police department. 238 

The situation could not but cause confusion. To 
the average man on the street, the Supervisors had 



238 The San Francisco Call, in its issue of June 10, 1907, said 
of Schmitz's continued hold on the Police Department: 

"The Call has never attached much importance to the well meant 
efforts of the various citizens' committees to persuade Mayor 
Schmitz to reorganize the police force and the governing commis- 
sion of that body. It is easy to understand that Schmitz might 
engage in some such transaction or bargain if he could be shown his 
own advantage therein, but that he would surrender control of his 
most valuable personal asset at this time or, indeed at any other 
time, was scarcely conceivable in view of the character of the man. 
This is said advisedly. It is notorious that Schmitz all through his 
long session in office has treated his control of the police not as a 
public trust for the common good, but as so much personal property 
to be used to the limit for his private advantage. Therefore, when 
Schmitz, in the first instance, gave a committee some sort of pledge 
that ho would comply with its desire or requests, there was a very 
natural suspicion that the terms of the bargain as a whole had not 
been disclosed. There was the insistent inquiry, 'What does S.chmitz 
get by the bargain?' 

"That question has never been answered from the inside and 
probably will not be answered, but the committee very shortly quit 
in disgust, realizing, doubtless, that Schmitz wanted something it 
could not grant as a consideration for his abandonment of power. 

"A second committee that took up the work now finds that 
Schmitz is deaf to its requests for a reorganization of the police 
force. The lack of discipline in that body has become a public 
scandal. At its head is seen a man under indictment for felony, the 
associate of criminals and accused of tampering with veniremen 
called to try Schmitz — an accusation whose truth he admits." Gov- 
ernor Gillett has expressed the common knowledge that the Chief 
of Police is incompetent. He might have used a harsher word. 
But Dinan suits Schmitz. He is the ready and unscrupulous tool. 
An honest man in the same place would be of no use to Schmitz!" 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 219 

confessed to bribery. Why, then, were they permitted 
to remain an hour in office? Why were they not in- 
dicted, placed on their defense and sent to the peniten- 
tiary ? 

The graft defense naturally took advantage of this 
sentiment. "Government by the big stick," as the hold 
of the District Attorney's office over the Supervisors 
was called, was condemned and ridiculed. One heard, 
however, little reference to the hold of the beneficiaries 
of the Ruef administration upon the Mayor's office. 
From all sides the Prosecution was importuned to oust 
the "boodle Supervisors." But the fact that a "boodle 
Mayor" would then appoint their successors was not 
given such wide publicity. 

In addition to the complications in the municipal 
government, due to the Schmitz faction's dogged re- 
sistance to the Prosecution, combined with the unquali- 
fied yielding of the Supervisors and the partial con- 
fession of Ruef, San Francisco was in a condition of 
confusion and discord. 

At the time Ruef entered his plea of guilty to ex- 
tortion, a year had passed since the great fire of 1906. 
Thousands were still living in shacks erected in the 
ruins of the old city. The principal business streets 
were littered with building materials. There had come 
the depression following the activity of rehabilitation 
and the pouring into San Francisco of millions of in- 
surance money. Titles to real property were confused 
if not in doubt, much of the records having been de- 
stroyed in the fire. Thousands found themselves forced 
into court to establish their titles. A little later, the 



220 Schmitz Ousted from Office 

community was to suffer a visitation of bubonic plague. 
There were many authentic plague cases and some 
deaths. For months the city was in dread of quaran- 
tine. 

There were labor disturbances which for weeks at a 
time paralyzed industry. At one period between 7,000 
and 10,000 iron-trades workers were out on strike. 
At the time Schmitz was finally convicted of extortion 
the telephone girls had been on strike since May 3rd. 
This alone threw the complex organization of a modern 
city into extraordinary confusion. The linemen struck. 
On June 21, telegraph operators in San Francisco and 
Oakland left their keys. 

But by far the most serious labor disturbance was 
the strike of the street-car conductors and motormen. 
For weeks the entire street-car system was paralyzed. 
The first attempt to move a car resulted in riot in 
which one man was killed outright and twenty-six 
wounded. A number of the wounded died. 

President Calhoun of the United Railroads rejected 
all offers to compromise, announcing his intention to 
break the Street Carmen's Union. He succeeded ; in 
the end the union was broken and scattered, but at 
frightful cost to Mr. Calhoun's company and to San 
Francisco. 

During the strike of the carmen the city was filled 
with gunfighters and thugs admittedly in the employ 
of the United Railroads. Indeed, there was no attempt 
made to disguise the fact that the United Railroads 
had brought them into the city. Clashes between the 
two factions were of daily occurrence. 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 221 

Aside from horse-drawn vehicles which had been 
pressed into service, street transportation was, for a 
considerable period, practically at an end. The inability 
of the people to go from place to place paralyzed in- 
dustry and business. Merchants, hotel keepers, manu- 
facturers, all suffered. There were many failures. Citi- 
zens in all walks of life implored Mr. Calhoun to arbi- 
trate his difference with his men. He refused abso- 
lutely. 239 Henry T. Scott, president of the Pacific States 
Telephone and Telegraph Company, as doggedly re- 
fused to submit to arbitration the questions involved in 
the telephone girls' strike. 



239 When, through the good offices of a committee of citizens, the 
difficulties of the iron trades were finally adjusted, The Call took 
occasion to urge an ending of the stiff-necked policy which kept 
other employers and employees apart. 

"In the car strike," said The Call in its issue of June 1st, "in 
the telephone strike, in the laundry strike, there is nothing that 
cannot be disposed of by the same method and through the same 
agency as those that ended the iron traces controversy. There is 
no reason why all those disputes cannot be settled reasonably. The 
conciliation committee stands for public opinion. It voices the 
demand of the public for peace. No employer can afford to refuse 
its offices, nor can any representative of the employed afford to 
decline its offers of mediation. Arid if this committee, standing as 
it does for public opinion, could speak with convinction to the iron 
masters and their striking workmen, it should be able to deal even 
more effectively with the car strike and with the telephone strike. 
Those disputes concern public iitilities. Street-cars are run and 
telephones are operated under and by virtue of grants and privileges 
made bv the people, wherefore the people have the right to inter- 
vene when the grantees of those nrivilesres are at war with their 
employes. The people have the right, at. least, to mediate for peace. 
Mr. Cornelius and Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Scott and the leader of the 
telephone strikers may refuse to listen to the pacific overtures of the 
conciliation committee, but if thev do they must understand that 
the price of refusal is the loss of public sympathy and support — 
elements without which ultimate victory is impossible. 

"San Francisco has had about enousrh industrial warfare- The 
city wants peace, lasting ne^re. No sane man wants a fierht to a 
finish between labor and capital, or if he do^s he is San Francisco's 
enemy. The adjustment of the iron -workers' strike is a hopeful 
sign. It points the way to an end of all bitterness and contention. 
It augurs an earlv return to the harmonious relations of those who 
earn and those who pay wages, relations which are essential to the 
progress and prosperity of anv community. It is the best news of 
this stormy, stressful month." 



222 Schmitz Ousted from Office 

The police seemed utterly unable to deal with the 
situation. Governor Gillett threatened to call out the 
militia, and companies at Los Angeles were actually 
directed to be in readiness to enter San Francisco. But 
this move was finally abandoned. And through it all, 
President Calhoun refusing to arbitrate or to compro- 
mise, issued numerous proclamations 240 in which he 

240 The following-, issued on May 17, is a fair sample of the 
statements which Mr. Calhoun gave out during the period of con- 
fusion in San Francisco, in the spring and summer of 1907: * 

"To the American People — The newspapers of this city published 
yesterday afternoon and this morning contain sensational statements 
purporting to give the testimony of Mr. Abraham Ruef before the 
Grand Jury yesterday afternoon. It is alleged that he confessed that 
the United Railroads, through some of its officials, bribed the Super- 
visors to grant the permit for the overhead trolley over certain of 
its roads. I do not know if Mr. Ruef made any such statements. 
If he did, they are untrue. I repeat with renewed emphasis my 
former declaration that no official of this company ever bribed any 
one, authorized Mr. Ruef or any one else to bribe anybody, knew of 
any briberyi or approved of any bribery. 

"I charge the prosecution with having prostituted the great office 
of the District Attorney to further the plans of private malice in 
the interest of a man who organized the Municipal Street Railways 
of San Francisco on the 17th day of April, 190(5. the day before the 
earthquake and fire, with a capital stock of $14,000,000, of which 
$4,500,000 were subscribed for a.s follows: Claus Spreckels subscribed 
$1,900,000, James D. Phelan subscribed $1,000,000. George Whittell 
subscribed $500,000. Rudolph Spreckels subscribed $1,000,000, Charles 
S. Wheeler subscribed $100,000. Ten per cent of the amount sub- 
scribed, or $450,000, was paid in cash, as shown by the affidavit of 
the treasurer of the company, James K. Moffitt, duly filed in the 
County Clerk's office. 

"I charge that, in furtherance of the plans of the private prose- 
cutor to assure evidence that would involve the United Railroads, 
the Distinct Attorney has been willing to purchase testimony with 
immunity contracts, purporting to grant immunity to self-confessed 
criminals, which contracts I am informed were placed in escrow 
with the private prosecutor, and through which he controls a major- 
ity of the Board of Supervisors, who, as a member of the prosecution 
has declared, are 'dogs' to do his bidding. 

"I charge that the District Attorney was in consultation with the 
members of the self-confessed criminals on the Board of Supervisors 
in regard to the passage of the resolution holding up the Geary 
street railroad company, and providing for the forfeiture of its 
license, unless it yielded to the demands of its striking employes. 

"I charge that while the best element in this community was 
seeking to preserve law and order, the District Attorney was in 
secret conference with self-confessed criminals, giving aid and com- 
fort to the strikers. Shall his great office be prostituted to the 
support of lawlessness? 

"The officials of this company are ready to meet their enemies in 
the open, and before they are through, they expect to show to the 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 223 

intimated that the Graft Prosecution had brought on 
the trouble which confronted San Francisco. The 
Prosecution's object, Mr. Calhoun held, was to injure 
him and his railroad company. In this connection, it 
may be said, that during the searching investigation of 
the graft trials, not one word of testimony was pro- 
duced to indicate basis for Mr. Calhoun's insinuations 
and open charges that the carmen's strike was part of a 
plot to injure him and his company. 241 On the con- 



whole country the infamy of the methods of the prosecution, the 
baseness of the motives of the private prosecutor, his readiness to 
grant immunity to self-confessed criminals, and the willingness of 
the prosecution to aid the strikers, even if it involved this com- 
munity in disorder and bloodshed, provided it furthered the private 
prosecutor's personal ends. 

"The organization of the Municipal Street Railways of San Fran- 
cisco, the attacks upon the officials of the United Railroads, the 
immunity granted to self-confessed criminals, the strike of the car- 
men, the hold-up of the Geary-street Railroad Company, the for- 
feiture of its license to operate, all seek one common end, the injury 
of the United Railroads and its officials, and the advancement of the 
personal schemes of the private prosecutor. 

"I ask from the American people fair play, and a patient consid- 
eration. I ask them to withhold their judgment, freed from the bias 
naturally created by sensational charges. The contest in which I 
am engaged is grave, and I cannot afford now to disclose the whole 
strength of my hand, but before this contest is over, I confidently 
expect to defeat alike the machinations of Rudolph Spreckels, the 
private prosecutor, with his corps of hired detectives, and Mr. Cor- 
nelius, president of the Carmen's Union, the leader of anarchy and 
lawlessness, and to see firmly established in this community the 
principles of American liberty, and the triumph of truth and jus- 
tice." 

On May 21 Calhoun issued a statement directly charging the 
lawlessness in San Francisco to the Prosecution. He said: 

"The drama is now unfolding itself and the citizens of this city 
will have an opportunity to fix the responsibility for existing, condi- 
tions. The prosecution has said that the Supervisors would be 'good 
dogs' and do its bidding. The resolutions concerning the Geary- 
street line and the United Railroads are on a par with the neglect 
of the board to see that order is preserved. The prosecution is now 
responsible for the government of the city; therefore it is responsible 
for existing conditions, including the failure to suppress violence 
and to protect life and property." 

241 Although representatives of the Defense had intimated re- 
peatedly that the supporters of the Graft Prosecution had brought on 
the strike for the purpose of injuring the United Railroads, when 
the Prosecution attempted to introduce evidence to the contrary, 
Calhoun's attorneys resisted. 



224 Schmitz Ousted from Office 

trary, the strike might have been averted had the 
United Railroads adopted a more tactful policy in deal- 
ing with its men. And, in addition to this, a more 
conciliatory attitude on the part of President Calhoun 
would, during the progress of the strike, have brought 
it to a close at any time. The fact remains, too, that 
during the 1907 municipal campaign, which opened 
even while the United Railroads was crushing the car- 
men's union, the support of the United Railroads went 
to the Union Labor party candidate for District At- 
torney. Heading the Union Labor party ticket was P. 
H. McCarthy, one of the strongest opponents of the 
Graft Prosecution, and at the same time ardent backer 
of the striking carmen. 

The efforts of the United Railroads to crush the 
carmen's union, while at the same time exerting itself 
to elect the Union Labor party candidate for District 
Attorney, indicates the confusion that existed in San 
Francisco following the confessions of the Supervisors 
and the revelations made by Ruef. And the efforts of 
the various factions to seize the municipal government 
increased this confusion materially. 

The day following Ruef's confession, a committee 
of businessmen, representing the Merchants' Associa- 
tion, the Board of Trade, the Chamber of Commerce, 
the Manufacturers' and Producers' Association and the 
Merchants' Exchange waited upon Spreckels and Heney 
to enlist the co-operation of the Prosecution in restoring 
normal conditions. The committee — called the Com- 
mittee of Seven because of its numbers — 242 already 

242 The seven members of the committee were: F. B. Anderson, 
manager of the Bank of California; Percy T. Morgan, president of 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 225 

had the endorsement of Mayor Schmitz. The Chronicle, 
which acted from the start in the capacity of special 
pleader for this committee, announced in startling head- 
lines in its issue of May 18, that "Mayor Schmitz prac- 
tically turns reins of government over to citizens. Com- 
mittee of Seven may run this city." 243 

"With the exception of the administration of merely 
routine affairs," said the Chronicle of that date, "the 
committee, by Mayor Schmitz's written agreement, is to 
all intents and purposes, the Mayor of San Francisco." 

Governor James N. Gillett 244 was reported to be 
heartily in accord with the committee's purposes. Final- 
ly, in an editorial article, the Chronicle announced that 
"the public looks to this committee to restore the good 

the California Wine Association and a director in the Pacific States 
Telephone and Telegraph Company; F. W. Van Sicklen, president 
of Dodge Sweeney & Co.; F. W. Dohrmann, president of Nathan, 
Dohrmann & Co.; Henry Rosenfeld, a shipping and commission mer- 
chant; C. H. Bentley, president of the Chamber of Commerce, and 
Judge Charles W. Slack, who, in 1909, was to be one of the principal 
supporters of the opposition to the prosecution candidate for Dis- 
trict Attorney. Illness compelled Mr. Dohrmann to sever his con- 
nection with the committee. Mr. William A. Magee served, in his 
stead. 

243 The Chronicle, in its issue of May 19, printed the following as 
the committee's declaration of principles: 

"Declaration of principles by the Committee of Seven and what 
it intends to do: 

"We propose to carry out our duty, irrespective of who is affected. 

"We have adopted the Constitution of the United States as the 
fundamental basis for our final action. 

"We intend to bring about a clean condition of affairs in this 
community and make it safe for habitation by human beings and 
for the investment of capital. 

"We shall do nothing in the nature of class legislation and recog- 
nize that every element in the community has a right to represen- 
tation in the government." 

244 In a published statement printed May 19, 1906, Governor Gil- 
lett said: "The good citizens of San Francisco are for preserving 
order and the good name of this city, and protecting the constitu- 
tional rights of its people. The Committee of Seven, as I understand 
it, were appointed for this purpose, and every law-abiding citizen 
and every loyal paper in this city, the Bulletin with the rest, are 
expected to strengthen their hands and encourage them in their 
work." 



226 Schmitz Ousted from Office 

name of the city, and to the prosecuting authorities to 
stand solidly behind them while they do it." 

But in spite of the Chronicle's insistence, the public 
gave no evidence of spontaneous outburst in favor of 
the committee. Instead, there was a general turning to 
the leaders of the Prosecution to note their attitude. 
The Prosecution gave no evidence of enthusiastic sup- 
port; quite the contrary. "The District Attorney," an- 
nounced Langdon, "will not act with any committee that 
is named by Mayor Schmitz to take charge of the 
government of San Francisco." 

After several conferences with the committee, Ru- 
dolph Spreckels refused to join with it on the ground 
that it had placed itself in a position "to directly or 
indirectly accomplish results very much desired by Cal- 
houn, Herrin and the coterie who are inimical to the 
Prosecution." Mr. Spreckels also expressed his belief 
that a majority of the committee were sincere men 
who went on the committee with proper motives, but, 
Spreckels suggested, "if this committee really has its 
origin in an honest motive, I do not see why it cannot 
act on its own volition. I do not see the necessity of 
this committee demanding that I co-operate with it. If 
its members want to have a change in the municipal 
offices and the members of the various municipal com- 
missions, let them go ahead and outline their own 
programme. I have no desire to dictate who shall con- 
stitute the membership of the various city offices. I 
started out in this graft prosecution to bring all guilty 
municipal officials to the bar of justice and have them 
punished. That is my single motive. I have no ulterior 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 227 

designs in this matter regardless of whatever anyone 
may say to the contrary." 245 

In spite of the Chronicle's statement that the public 
looked to the Prosecution to stand solidly behind the 
committee, and the protestations of Governor Gillett, 
the public was content to accept the judgment of Mr. 
Langdon, Mr. Spreckels and Mr. Heney as final. With- 
out popular demand for it, there was nothing for the 
committee to do but resign. And it did resign. 246 

The resignation of the Committee of Seven brought 
from Governor Gillett a statement urging the appoint- 

245 The failure to enlist Spreckels with the Committee of Seven 
brought down upon him the condemnation of leaders of the State 
machine. "My surprise at this attitude of Mr. Spreckels," said Gov- 
ernor Gillett in an interview printed in The Examiner, May 21, 1907, 
"is great. It means a bad moral effect on the local industrial dis- 
turbance. If a banker like Mr. Spreckels will not act in harmony 
with the committee from the leading commercial organizations of 
this city, then I can readily account for the friction all down the 
line in this city. There ought to be unity of action to get the city 
out of its present plight, but evidently the leading business men of 
the town, for reasons I certainly cannot understand, are not in a 
mood to act in harmony." 

246 When the Committee of Seven retired, May 20, Committee- 
man Slack issued the following statement: 

"The Committee of Seven yesterday decided that nothing could 
be accomplished by it, in view of the attitude of Mr. Spreckels and 
Mr. Heney. We met those gentlemen for the fourth time yesterday 
morning and were informed that they could not act with us. Mr. 
Spreckels declared, in spite of assurances to the contrary from every 
member of the committee, that he believed Herrin and Calhoun to 
be behind us. We had agreed, in the first place, that nothing should 
be done which would interfere in any way with the work of Mr. 
Spreckels and Mr. Heney. When we went to them and asked their 
co-operation they declined to co-operate. Under the circumstances 
we felt that the committee could not be of any further value and 
asked to be discharged. 

"I think Mr. Spreckels was sincere in his belief that we repre- 
sented interests opposed to him, and I have nothing but the kindest 
feelings toward him, although I believe that he was mistaken. I 
believe the other members of the committee are with me in this. 

"My acquaintance with Mr. Herrin is only of the most casual 
sort, and I should be more likely to act against rather than for him. 
I do not know Mr. Calhoun at all. 

"It is with great regret that the committee has abandoned the 
work which it felt called upon to undertake, and only the belief that 
without the assistance of Mr. Spreckels its work would be valueless 
led it to take this step." 



228 Schmitz Ousted from Office 

ment of "a strong governing body to take charge of 
affairs." 247 Acting upon the Governor's suggested plan, 
the five commercial bodies decided upon the appointment 
of a committee of seventy-five, or, as the Chronicle, 
mouthpiece for the advocates of this course, put it, 
"Seventy-five prominent citizens are to be appointed to 

247 Governor Gillett's suggestions were contained in a statement 
published in the San Francisco papers on May 25th. It was as fol- 
lows: 

"Mr. Cornelius, as president of the Carmen's Union, and the 
other labor leaders of San Francisco can bring an end to the acts of 
violence that are committed daily in this city if they will, and in 
the event that they don't they will be held morally responsible for 
what happens in the future, if anything of a serious nature does 
happen. 

"San Francisco does not want to see the State troops enter the 
city. It is better for the labor unions, the citizens, the city and the 
State that they should not take charge of affairs, but I will say, if 
this violence continues and increases the militia will be brought in 
and will take charge of affairs. Nothing along that line has been 
planned as yet and the State will wait a reasonable length of time 
for conditions to be adjusted. 

"Something must be done. There must be a strong governing 
body to take charge of affairs, and along this line I have one sug- 
gestion to make. Let the various civic bodies of San Francisco get 
together and appoint a committee of twenty-five or fifty from their 
members, a committee of strong-minded men who will not allow 
politics to enter into the question, and who will fight for San 
Francisco as plain citizens interested in the welfare of the city. 

"Such a committee could accomplish much. The first step to be 
taken would be to demand the appointment of a new police com- 
mission, the removal of officers in charge of districts who are incom- 
petent, and the substitution of competent, firm men. 

"Mayor Schmitz would not dare to refuse to accede to the de- 
mands of such a committee, and if the body acted with a firm 
hand the citizens would soon see an improvement in conditions. 

"The executive committee, which appointed the Committee of 
Seven can bring about the organization of such a body as I suggest. 
It was noticeable that when the Committee of Seven took hold of 
affairs there was less violence for a couple of days, but as soon as 
the body tendered its resignation there was an increase in these 
acts of violence. 

"Acts of violence must cease. No self-respecting community will 
permit a reign of crime day after day, the throwing of bricks and 
other missiles, the use of vile and abusive language, and the beat- 
ing of men walking along the streets peaceably. Then, too, we have 
our wives and daughters to think of. Conditions are certainly 
deplorable when they cannot go upon the streets of a great city like 
San Francisco without being compelled to hear obscene language 
and witness acts of violence such as have been committed within 
the last three weeks. 

"There are strong men here, and if they set about the matter In 
the right way there will be no occasion for the entrance of the 
State troops into the city." 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 229 

restore order." The Chronicle went on to say that 
"It is understood that Mayor Schmitz is ready to 
agree to act in accordance with the recommendations 
of the new committee as he did when the Committee 
of Seven was formed. He would be glad, it is believed, 
to have the assistance of such a body of men in meet- 
ing some of the conditions which he has to face." 248 

At the time (May 29) of the publication of the 
Chronicle's belief that Mayor Schmitz would be glad to 
have the assistance of such a body of men as had been 
proposed, the Mayor's trial was drawing to its close. 
A fortnight later he was convicted of one of the gravest 
felonies that can be charged against an executive. 
Mayor Schmitz's conviction brought complete change 
in the situation. It made possible the ousting of the 
entire corrupt administration. In the ousting, the com- 
mercial bodies, as well as the representative labor union 
organizations, were given opportunity to co-operate. 
The refusal of the majority of them to participate threw 
the obligation upon the District Attorney's office. 

When the Jury returned its verdict finding Mayor 
Schmitz guilty of felony, District Attorney Langdon 
found himself in an extraordinary position. Upon him, 
as District Attorney, fell the responsibility of naming 
the chief executive of San Francisco to succeed the dis- 
credited Mayor. 

There was no question about a vacancy existing in 
the Mayor's office. Under the California laws, a va- 
cancy in office exists upon conviction of the incumbent 

248 See footnote 229, page 206. 



230 Schmitz Ousted from Office 

of felony. The courts had held repeatedly that a jury's 
verdict of guilty in a felony case carries conviction. 

A vacancy, therefore, existed in the Mayor's office. 
Under the municipal charter the Supervisors alone were 
empowered to fill it. But sixteen of the Supervisors, 
having confessed to felonies, were taking no steps with- 
out the approval of the District Attorney. They would 
name for Mayor, him whom the District Attorney ap- 
proved and no other. Naturally, Langdon consulted 
those associated with him in the Graft Prosecution. No 
better earnest of the sincerity and disinterestedness of 
Langdon and those who were assisting him is furnished 
than in this crisis. They had it within their power to 
select first Mayor and then Supervisors who would be 
utterly subservient to them. Instead, they proposed a 
plan by which representative associations were given 
opportunity to reorganize the municipal government by 
naming Mayor Schmitz's successor. 

Nor was there any hasty action. The office of 
Mayor was not declared vacant until after Schmitz had 
been sentenced to the penitentiary. But Schmitz was 
in the county jail and incompetent to act. It was of 
immediate necessity that a temporary successor be sub- 
stituted. Until this were done, San Francisco would 
be without a chief executive. To meet the emergency, 
the Supervisors named Supervisor Gallagher to be 
acting Mayor. 249 

249 Of the eighteen Supervisors, two, O'Neil and Tveitmoe, had 
been appointed by Mayor Schmitz to fill vacancies after the bribery 
transactions. They were in no way involved in the briberies. They 
were, therefore, independent of the District Attorney. O'Neil put 
Tveitmoe in nomination against Gallagher. "What is the differ- 
ence," demanded O'Neil, "between Eugene E. Schmitz and James 
L. Gallagher?" Gallagher's face went red with rage, but there was 
no way of silencing the critic. 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 231 

After the sentencing of Schmitz the rapidly devel- 
oping situation made it necessary that the convicted 
official's office be declared vacant and his successor 
appointed. But the successor had not been named, nor 
had plans for the change in administration been formu- 
lated. 250 In this further emergency, it was decided to 
name one of the Supervisors to be Mayor to serve until 
a permanent successor of Mayor Schmitz could be 
named. The unhappy Boxton 251 was decided upon. 



250 This tardiness of appointment was not due to any lack of 
candidates. Practically every faction in San Francisco had its 
choice for Schmitz's successor. 

251 The election of Boxton to be Mayor may be called the refine- 
ment of cruelty. His elevation to high executive office but empha- 
sized the shame of his position. From taking his oath of office he 
was rushed to the witness stand to testify against Louis Glass on 
trial for participation in bribing him to oppose the granting of the 
Home Telephone Company franchise. D. M. Delmas was conduct- 
ing the case for the defense. Delmas suavely turned Bbxton's 
elevation to account. He scrupulously addressed Boxton as the 
"Mayor." And, in comparison, he wrung from the new Mayor's 
lips: "I took bribes and was a spy for Halsey." 

Nor did Delmas confine his refined ridicule to the unhappy 
Mayor Boxton. Heney had, for example, asked the court to take 
judicial notice of the fact that while Schmitz was in Europe, Gal- 
lagher had served as acting Mayor. 

"I don't think," interrupted Delmas, "your honor will extend 
your judicial knowledge that far, because that would be to keep 
track of the change of Mayors here, and it would keep you too 
busy to discharge your duties." 

A grim party surrounded Boxton while he took his oath of office. 
Boxton gave no evidence of pride of his new station. 

"When I think," he said during a lull in the proceedings, "of 
the things that have come into my life in the last ten years, I 
realize how few of them were of my own planning. When we came 
back from Manila, I had no idea of politics, but they insisted in 
making heroes of us, and I had to run for Supervisor. Now I wish 
I had not done it." 

Later on he gave out the following interview: 

"This has come to me as a great surprise. I very much regret 
the circumstances which have led up to this appointment. I hope 
the people will bear with me for the few weeks that I am in office. 
As to my official policy, I cannot discuss that at present. 

"You know, it is with a feeling of sadness I take the office. I 
am glad it is a temporary appointment and will last only a short 
time. I didn't know when I told you this morning that I was willing 
to do whatever was thought best, either to remain in office or to 
resign from the board, that this would be put upon me. I am sorry 
they have asked me to take the office, and will be glad when it is 



232 Schmitz Ousted from Office 

The Supervisors, by resolution, definitely declared the 
office of Mayor vacant and elected Supervisor Boxton 
to be Mayor. 

On the day that Boxton was named Mayor of San 
Francisco, District Attorney Langdon made public a 
plan for a convention to select a Mayor to serve until 
the successor of Mayor Schmitz could be elected and 
qualified. Mr. Langdon proposed that the convention 
should be made up of thirty members, fifteen to be 
appointed by organized labor and fifteen by the or- 
ganized commercial bodies. On the side of Labor were 
apportioned eight delegates to the Labor Council and 
seven to the Building Trades Council. The five com- 
mercial bodies, the Chamber of Commerce, Merchants' 
Association, Board of Trade, Real Estate Board and 
Merchants' Exchange, were allowed three delegates 
each. That the convention might proceed in its choice 
unhampered, the District Attorney pledged that he and 
his associates would wholly refrain from participation 
after the convention had assembled. 252 

But this did not suit the several factions at all. 
Admittedly, the Prosecution could name the Mayor. 
Each faction wanted its man named, and while there 
remained a chance for its man to be named, did not 
care to see the extraordinary power in the hands of 

over. The only thing I can say is that I believe during the short 

time I will hold the office the people will have no cause to " 

Boxton halted for his words — "Again find fault with me." 
The Examiner commenting upon Boxton's elevation, said "Hav- 
ing put our brike-taking Mayor in jail, and having put in his place 
a taker of smaller bribes, we have now substituted for Gallagher, 
Boxton, who differs from Gallagher principally in having sold his 
vote for still less of the bribing corporations' money." 

252 The District Attorney's statement of his plan to the various 
organizations concerned will be found in full on page xxii of the 
Appendix. 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 233 

the District Attorney delegated to the uncertainties of 
a convention. 

In the scramble for advantage, the self-control and 
self-forgetting attitude of the members of the Prosecu- 
tion, instead of exciting admiration, was condemned. 
The Examiner, referring to Langdon's associates, for 
example, announced: 'Their failure to agree on any- 
one has led to some alarm for fear their divergent 
political ambitions are making each of them endeavor 
to secure a place for his personal puppet." Had the 
Prosecution named the Examiner's "personal puppet," 
this particular source of criticism would undoubtedly 
have been silenced and the Examiner's vilification and 
abuse of the Prosecution during the years that fol- 
lowed averted. What is true of the Examiner in this 
regard is true of the other institutions and interests 
which, in this crisis of the city's history, were clamor- 
ing for "recognition." 253 District Attorney Langdon's 
plan, on the whole, was not received in the spirit in 
which it was offered. 

The Building Trades Council, under the influence 
of P. H. McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, promptly re- 
jected the District Attorney's proposal and refused to 
name delegates. 1254 This action influenced the Labor 



253 The Chronicle, however, endorsed Langdon's plan, and urged 
the several labor and industrial bodies to participate. "As the 
matter appears at present," said The Chronicle, "the prosecution 
has resorted to the only safe and reasonable plan of restoring good 
government, and fault-finding with the method adopted will be 
confined to the hyper-critical and those who imagine that they 
would find profit in a continuance of unsettled conditions." 

254 The resolutions adopted by the Building Trades Council 
rejecting Langdon's plan for reorganization of the municipal gov- 
ernment, were as follows: 

"Whereas, An invitation has been received by this council from 
the District Attorney of this city and county, requesting this 



234 Schmitz Ousted from Office 

Council, which, on the ground that in the absence of 
delegates from the Building Trades Council the Labor 
Council representatives might be outvoted, refused to 
participate. 

Of the five commercial bodies, the Real Estate Board 
alone promptly accepted the District Attorney's invita- 
tion. The board named its three delegates and so 
notified the District Attorney. 

The Merchants' Exchange demanded that the num- 
ber of delegates be increased from thirty to forty-five 
by the addition of fifteen professional men, and pro- 
posed that the convention name a new Board of Super- 
visors as well as Mayor. 255 

council appoint seven delegates to participate in a convention com- 
posed of thirty delegates, made up of fifteen representatives from 
the labor organizations of this city and fifteen representatives from 
the civic organizations outside of the labor organization^ ; and 
whereas, said convention is to be called for the purpose of select- 
ing a person to be appointed Mayor of the City and County of San 
Francisco; and whereas, at this time this council is not possessed of 
sufficient information upon the subject to determine whether or not 
the action proposed to be taken by the convention would be legal, 
and whether or not such action, if taken, would not lead to a 
multiplicity of suits by reason of the appointment to an office 
where a doubt as to the vacancy in said office exists, and as a 
result lead to endless litigation and regrettable confusion; and 
whereas, those who have arrogated to themselves the duty of guid- 
ing the destinies of the entire municipality of San Francisco only 
last Tuesday, by the exercise of assumed power, through the Board 
of Supervisors, placed in the Mayor's chair one who is to their own 
knowledge legally disqualified, to the exclusion of one or the other 
of two gentlemen who are members of that board in the personnel 
of O. A. Tveitmoe and J. J. O'Neil, whose characters, both public 
and private, are above reproach; and whereas, the Building Trades 
Council was organized and is maintained for the purpose of direct- 
ing, protecting and conducting the building industry from the 
standpoint of the journeymen with justice alike to the owner, con- 
tractor and artisan, and not for the purpose of making mayors 
through the instrumentality of star chamber conventions, thereby 
usurping the rights and prerogatives of the people; therefore, be it 

"Resolved, That this Building Trades Council, in regular meeting 
assembled, instruct its secretary to acknowledge the receipt of the 
said invitation, and decline to act thereon for the reasons herein 
stated." 

255 Langdon's reply to the objections of the Merchants' Ex- 
change was as follows: 

"We cannot entertain any such proposition at this data. We 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 235 

The Board of Trade refused to co-operate unless 
the delegates be increased in number by the addition of 
"professional men and others." 

The Chamber of Commerce and the Merchants' 
Association finally accepted, but stipulated that a two- 
thirds vote of the thirty delegates should be required 
for a choice. 

The failure of the several organizations to join in 
the selection of a Mayor, made it necessary for Lang- 
don himself to proceed with the reorganization. All 
that Langdon and his associates required was that the 
new executive should be independent of political con- 
trol and free of the influence of those public-service 
corporations that had been trapped in bribe-giving. It 
was also the aim of the Prosecutor to name as Mayor 
one whose standing was such that none could be so 
unfair as to charge him with being in the slightest 
degree under the influence of the Prosecution. 

Langdon and his associates agreed that Dr. John 
Gallwey was independent of corrupting influences and 



have already had submitted to us, and have considered at least one 
hundred plans for calling an electoral convention, and after care- 
fully deliberating on all these plans, decided upon the plan which 
we have announced. This plan gives the opposing factions of labor 
and capital each an equal representation in the electoral body. 
The responsibility of deciding who shall be the Mayor is distinctly 
imposed on the two most important factions in the community, and 
as far as giving a square deal to everybody, we do not see how our 
announced plan can be improved upon. Certainly the addition of 
fifteen delegates appointed by any special committee cannot improve 
the plan. In our announcement it has been clearly stated that all 
the commercial and labor organizations called have until Saturday 
to name their delegates, and these delegates will assemble next 
Monday to nominate the new Mayor. The plan announced will not 
be modified in any way. It places the issue squarely before the 
people and if they do not wish to act upon it we cannot help it. 

"In regard to the proposition to permit the electoral convention 
to name sixteen new Supervisors, I will say that while there is no 
objection to it, we do not think it is wise to incorporate it in our 
present plan." 



236 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 



to Dr. Gallwey the appointment was offered. But Dr. 
Gallwey declined to accept the responsibilities of the 
Mayor's office on the ground that he could not afford 
to devote his time to the duties of the office to the extent 
that would be required in order to conduct it properly, 
and on the further ground that he could be of more 
service to humanity in the practice of medicine than 
in the discharge of the duties of Mayor. 

The place was then offered to Ralph Harrison, a 
former member of the Supreme Bench. But Judge 
Harrison declined on the ground that he thought the 
duties of the office, under the conditions existing 256 

256 Schmitz's resistance of the elevation of Gallagher no doubt 
influenced the aged Justice in his refusal. From the county jail 
Schmitz continued to insist that he was still the de facto Mayor of 
San Francisco. The Chief of Police, himself under indictment, 
sided with Schmitz. Gallagher during his eventful term blocked by 
the police, was not permitted to enter the Mayor's office. When 
Boxton was made Mayor, Langdon went with him to the Mayor's 
office and seized the furniture. Schmitz's partisans boasted that 
the Mayor would be released on bail, march with his followers to 
the meeting place of the Supervisors, and, with the aid of the 
police, oust Gallagher by force. Schmitz's resistance made itself 
felt in many ways. For example, an athletic club had arranged for 
a boxing match, for which a permit signed by the Mayor had to be 
issued. Gallagher had signed the permit. Chief of Police Dinan, 
however, refused to recognize it unless it were signed by Schmitz. 
The manager of the affair was compelled to go to the county jail 
for Schmitz's signature. Schmitz notified the bondsmen of City 
Treasurer Charles A. Bantel that he would hold them responsible 
for any moneys paid out by Bantel without his (Schmitz's) signa- 
ture. The bondsmen notified Bantel that as a matter of precaution 
he must have the signature of Schmitz as well as that of Gallagher 
as authorization for paying out funds. This precautionary course 
was followed to its logical conclusion. On July 12, a contractor by 
the name of J. J. Dowling cashed a municipal warrant which bore 
the signatures of no less than three Mayors, Schmitz, Gallagher and 
Boxton. 

Late in June, Schmitz sent to the auditor warrants signed by 
himself for June salaries for himself, his secretary, his stenographer 
and his usher. The auditor decided to allow these warrants for 
that part of the month up to the date of Schmitz's conviction. San 
Francisco allows its Mayor $300 a month for contingent expenses. 
Both Schmitz and Gallagher claimed this $300 for July. The auditor 
decided to recognize neither claim. In answer to Schmitz's demand 
that Gallagher be ignored as Mayor, the auditor sent the impris- 
oned executive a soothing or grimly humorous letter, as one may 
view it, in which he recognized Schmitz as the de jure Mayor, pos- 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 237 

would be too onerous for him to undertake at his time 
of life. 

Dr. Edward R. Taylor, 257 dean of the Hastings Col- 
lege of Law, was then consulted. Dr. Taylor agreed to 
accept the position. In tendering Dr. Taylor the 
mayoralty, the Prosecution left him entirely free to con- 
duct the office according to his own judgment. He 
was assured that no one connected with the Prosecu- 
tion would expect or ask him to be guided or controlled 
or influenced in any way by all or any of them. 

sessing "the honor and the title," and Gallagher "simply as a de 
facto Mayor," possessing the office. 

When the bribe-taking Supervisors resigned, Schmitz, from the 
county jail, appointed their successors. Seven of these Schmitz 
appointees actually took the oath of office. On the night of Taylor's 
election to succeed Boxton as Mayor, one of Schmitz's appointees, 
Samuel T. Sawyer, appeared before the board and demanded that 
he be sworn in as Supervisor. Gallagher, who was presiding re- 
fused to recognize Schmitz as Mayor and refused Sawyer a seat. 

Even after Taylor had been elected, Chief of Police Dinan con- 
tinued to recognize Schmitz as Mayor. Dinan, for example, placed 
the automobile maintained by the city for the use of the .Mayor, 
under guard of a policeman and for several days prevented Mayor 
Taylor securing it. 

Mayor Taylor gave effective check to this harassing opposition 
by refusing to sign warrants upon the treasury which bore Schmitz's 
signature. Gradually Schmitz's resistance to the new order died 
out. 

Schmitz contented himself with issuing a statement through the 
Associated Press that he would be a candidate for re-election. He 



"You may announce that I will be a candidate for re-election 
this fall, and that I expect to win. I have already begun my cam- 
paign in a preliminary way, and shall carry it forward steadily 
from this time. I have no fear of the race. I am willing to make 
it without the aid of the Ruef organization, whose support I had 
in each of the three campaigns since 1901. Presumably that organ- 
ization no longer exists, but its component parts, though scat- 
tered, are as much in existence as ever. It is up to me to gather 
them together and cement them into an organization of my own — a 
task I am prepared to undertake." 

257 Dr. Edward Robeson Taylor was born at Springfield, 111., Sept. 
24, 1838. He came to California in 1862. In 1865 he graduated from 
the Toland Medical College. In 1872, he was admitted to the Cali- 
fornia bar. He served as dean of the Hastings College of Law. 
For thirty years he was Vice-President and President of the Cooper 
Medical College. He was one of the freeholders who framed the 
present San Francisco municipal charter, and at the time of his 
selection as Mayor, had served San Francisco and the State in many 
important public capacities. 



238 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 



Boxton, after Taylor had agreed to serve, resigned 
his office. The Supervisors then elected Dr. Taylor to 
fill the vacancy. 258 

The next step in the reorganization of the municipal 
government was the resignation of the sixteen Super- 
visors who had confessed to bribery and the appoint- 
ment of their successors. When Mayor Taylor 259 had 

258 Dr. Taylor's selection gave general satisfaction. "My belief 
is," said Governor Gillett in a published interview, "that b.e will 
make an able and trustworthy executive. It is particularly for- 
tunate that he is identified with no factional politics and can work 
for a clean reorganized administration of the city government." 

"The most important feature connected with the selection/' said 
the Chronicle, "is the doctor's absolute freedom from alliances with 
any particular interest. He is free from all entanglements, and his 
ability and firmness of character give assurance that his efforts will 
be wholly directed to bettering the condition and restoring the 
confidence of the community. We repeat that San Francisco owes 
the doctor a debt of gratitude for sinking considerations of per- 
sonal comfort and devoting himself to the general welfare, and 
that the prosecution has acted wisely in selecting and inducing him 
to act." 

On the other hand, The Examiner ridiculed the selection. Labor 
Union party leaders of the type of P. H. McCarthy were loud in 
expressions of their disapproval. 

259 Mayor Taylor, the day of his election, issued the following 
statement: 

"I accepted this office with much reluctance, and only because I 
believed that any man who was requested to serve the city in this 
capacity in the hour of her need should heed the request, no 
matter what the personal sacrifice might be. 

"Had any pledges been exacted of me by those who tendered the 
office, I would not have considered the tender for one-thousandth 
part of a second. 

"I would not submit to any dictation in the administration of 
the office, nor do I believe that any one who knows me would 
attempt to dictate to me. 

"If I am called upon to appoint a Board of Supervisors, I will 
select the very best men who can be induced to accept the offices, 
and I shall exercise my own judgment as to who are the best men. 

"I am going to do the best I can for the city without regard to 
partisan politics, and, so far as I am concerned, there will be no 
partisan politics. 

"As Mayor of this city, every man looks just as tall to me as 
every other man. 

"The first essential to good government is perfect order, and I 
shall employ every arm of the law to the end that such order shall 
prevail. 

"I believe in autonomy in every department of the city govern- 
ment, and I believe that commissioners should be permitted to 
administer the affairs of their respective departments, free from 
dictation, as long as they demonstrate by their acts that they are 
honest and competent." 



Schmitz Ousted from Office 239 

found sixteen representative citizens willing to serve, 
the change was made. One by one the discredited 
officials resigned their positions. After each resignation 
had been accepted Mayor Taylor named the resigning 
member's successor. 260 

The scene was as painful as it was extraordinary. 
When it was over, the Schmitz-Ruef administration, so 
far as the legislative and executive branches were con- 
cerned, had passed. 



260 The citizens named by Dr. Taylor to act as Supervisors were: 

Dr. A. A. D'Ancona, dean of the Medical Faculty of the Uni- 
versity of California; Harry U. Brandenstein, attorney and former 
Supervisor; Gustave Brenner, capitalist and retired merchant; 
James P. Booth, newspaperman and former Supervisor; A. Comte, 
Jr., attorney and former Supervisor; George L. Center, real estate; 
Bernard Faymonville, vice-president Firemen's Fund Insurance 
Company; E. J. Molera, civil engineer and president of the Academy 
of Science; W. G. Stafford, president of the W. G. Stafford & Co., 
coal merchants; Henry Payot, retired merchant and former Super- 
visor; Matt I. Sullivan, attorney; Thomas Magee, real estate; Lipp- 
man Sachs, capitalist and retired merchant; L. P. Rixford, archi- 
tect; C. A. Murdock, printing and bookbinding; D. C. Murphy, 
attorney. 

A. Comte, Jr., .successor of Supervisor McGushin, did not take 
office until several days after his associates on the new board. This 
was due to McGushin's hesitation about resigning. Mr. McGushin 
finally resigned, however, and Comte was named in his stead. 

Of the Taylor Board of Supervisors, The Chronicle, in its issue 
of July 27th, said: 

"Mayor Taylor's choice of men for the new Board of Supervisors 
will fortunately not meet universal approval. It will satisfy all 
honest men who regard public office as a public trust and not as a 
private snap, but it will not satisfy those who are accustomed 
either to actually corrupt public servants or to use a secret pull to 
obtain private and undue advantage. It will not satisfy the crim- 
inal element who thrive by the wide-open town, and who abhor a 
Board of Supervisors who will back up an honest and capable 
Mayor. 

"The board which the Mayor has selected may be safely accepted 
as the leaders of the people. All interests are recognized except 
that of the boodlers. The city has many knotty problems to solve. 
Somebody must work them out. Probably no two capable and 
honest men would resolve the various doubts which will arise in 
precisely the same way, and yet out of all the possible ways in 
each case some particular way must be chosen. And it will be the 
duty of the Mayor and Supervisors, in the light of much more 
information than the majority of us can obtain, to select that way. 
And when it has been determined all patriotic citizens must get 
behind them." 



CHAPTER XVIII. 
The Real Fight Begins. 

Nine months after Heney assumed his duties as As- 
sistant District Attorney, Mayor Taylor named the suc- 
cessors of the Ruef-Schmitz Board of Supervisors. 

In those nine months much had been accomplished. 
Ruef had plead guilty to extortion and had made partial 
confession of his relations with the public-service corpo- 
rations. The Schmitz-Ruef Supervisors had made full 
and free confession, and had been removed from office. 
Mayor Schmitz had been convicted of extortion, ousted 
from office, and pending his appeal to the upper courts 
was confined in the county jail. The back of the 
Schmitz-Ruef political organization was broken, and 
its forces scattered. 

Had the Prosecution stopped here, the men whose 
devotion and self-sacrifice had made the undoing of 
the corrupt administration possible, would have retired 
with nothing more serious confronting them than the 
condemnation of the impotent puppets of large inter- 
ests whom they had brought to grief. But those behind 
the Prosecution were not content to leave their work 
at a point where the regeneration of San Francisco 
had scarcely begun. They proposed to go to the bot- 
tom of the graft scandal. It was not sufficient, they 
held, to punish poor men who were without friends or 
influence, while their rich and powerful associates went 
unpunished. The bribe-taking Supervisors might be put 



The Real Fight Begins 241 

in the penitentiary, but other bribe-taking Supervisors 
would eventually take their places. Ruef, punished by 
imprisonment, would serve as an example for political 
bosses that would cause them to hesitate for long before 
embarking in corrupt enterprises such as had brought 
the discredited boss to grief. This would make it hard 
for bribe-giving corporations to secure agents for bribe- 
passing, and make bribe-giving correspondingly difficult. 
But the conviction of high corporation officials, re- 
sponsible for the bribe-giving of public-service corpo- 
rations, was regarded as more important than all, for 
this would demonstrate bribe-giving to be unsafe, and 
check the practice at its very fountain-head. Such 
conviction, the Prosecution held, would have greater 
deterrent effect against bribery of public officials than 
the confinement of 500 bribe-taking Supervisors in the 
penitentiary. 261 



26i Heney's attitude toward the bribe-givers is expressed in an 
affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Calhoun et als., No. 823. 
Heney in setting forth a statement made to Rabbi Nieto says: 

"I consider that the greatest benefit which we will have done 
this city and this country by these prosecutions will be the "insight 
which we will have given them into the causes of corruption in all 
large cities, and into the methods by which this corruption is main- 
tained. The testimony of the members of the Board of Supervisors 
throws great light on this question, and Ruef could aid consid- 
erably in making it an object lesson to the world, if he would do so. 
The only way we can stop this kind of corruption is by enlighten- 
ing the people as to its causes and by thereafter endeavoring to 
remove the temptation which causes evil by proper remedial legis- 
lation, and in order to impress this object lesson on the people 
strongly enough to accomplish much good we must punish the 
principal men who have been involved in it. Do not imagine this 
is a pleasant task to me. It is far from being so. It involves men 
like Frank Drum, whom I liked and respected as a friend for 
years, and who has quite recently paid me a good attorney's fee 
for services performed for a company represented by him. I have 
met Patrick Calhoun socially, and greatly admire his ability and 
found him to be a man of very agreeable, attractive manners. I 
wish there was some other way to secure a proper deterrent effect 
without causing these men and their innocent families to suffer, 
but unless the laws are enforced, Doctor, our republican form of 
government cannot continue very long. It is not sufficient to pun- 
ish the poor man who has no friends or influence. The people 



242 The Real Fight Begins 

"I would be willing 1 ," Rudolph Spreckels testified 
at the Calhoun trial, "to grant immunity to any man 
who would bring to bar a man of great wealth who 
would debauch a city government, and who would use 
his wealth to corrupt individuals and tempt men of no 
means to commit crime in order that he might make 
more money." 

Such was the stand taken by District Attorney 
Langdon and his associates. The announced policy of 
the Prosecution, therefore, included the prosecution of 
the bribe-giver to the end. In pursuing this policy, 
Mr. Langdon and his associates aroused the astonish- 
ingly effective opposition of interests representing hun- 
dreds of millions of capital. Every indictment of cap- 
italist charged with bribe-giving was signal for a 
new group of financial leaders, their satellites, bene- 
ficiaries and dependents, to array themselves on the side 
of the graft defense. 262 



will lose respect for the courts and for the law unless the rich and 
powerful can be made to obey the laws. It has a greater deterrent 
effect, in my opinion, to put one rich and influential man in prison 
than to put a thousand poor ones there. It would do no good to 
send a few miserable, ignorant Supervisors to the penitentiary. 
Others of the same kind would soon take their places, and the 
carnival of crime would continue as before. If we can put iluef in 
the penitentiary it will have a wholesome effect upon other political 
bosses for the next decade at least. And if we can put a few 
captains of industry there with him, and particularly a few of the 
head officials of public service corporations, it will have a greater 
deterrent effect against bribery of public officials than putting five 
hundred of such officials in the penitentiary." 

262 "I subscribed to the Graft Prosecution fund," said one capi- 
talist whose own skirts were clean of the graft scandal, "but before 
the investigation was over I had to exert myself to prevent my 
own attorney going to jail." 

The manner in which every indictment increased the circle of 
opposition to the prosecution is well illustrated by the following 
selection from the San Francisco Chronicle of March 25, 1907: 

"The indictment of Louis Glass, former vice-president of the 
Pacific States Telephone Company, for bribery, on testimony given 
to the Grand Jury by E. J. Zimmer, who was the auditor of the 
company under Glass, and is now vice-president of the reorganized 



The Real Fight Begins 243 

With every indictment came a new group of at- 
torneys to raise technical objections to the proceedings, 
all of which the attorneys for the Prosecution were 
obliged to meet. 

The first attack was upon the validity of the Grand 
Jury. The attorneys for Ruef and Schmitz had ap- 
parently exhausted every point that could be raised for 
the disqualification of the Grand Jurors, but this did 
not prevent the heads of corporations who found them- 
selves under indictment making similar attacks. And 
between them, in this new move to quash the indict- 
ments, the defendants enlisted the ablest members of 
the California bar. 263 

In this new opposition an astonishing number of 
technical points were raised by one or the other of the 
groups of defending lawyers. Nothing was overlooked. 

corporation, has caused consternation in certain fashionable circles, 
in which Glass was one of the most popular men. 

"At the clubs of which the indicted telephone magnate was a 
member, much sympathy is expressed for him. He was extremely 
popular because of his affability and good-fellowship, and he has a 
host of friends, who are loth to believe that he has committed a 
crime which may put him behind the bars of San Quentin for four- 
teen years. 

"Attorney George Knight, who, it is expected, will be retained 
as counsel for Glass, voiced the sentiment of many of his friends, 
yesterday, when he said: 

" 'Louis Glass is one of the best fellows in a social way that 
ever lived. He is proud, high-spirited and in all his personal rela- 
tions with others he has always been most particular. I "cannot 
imagine what has led him into doing what he is said to have done 
in the telephone bribery, and I am sure that in spite of the indict- 
ment, when the truth is known, he will not appear in such a dis- 
creditable light.' " 

263 Among those who challenged the validity of the Grand Jury 
were: Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally, Tirey L. Ford and 
William Abbott of the United Railroads, represented by A. A. Moore 
and Stanley Moore; Louis Glass of the Pacific States Telephone 
Company, represented by Delmas and Coogan; John Martin, Eugene 
de Sabla and Frank Drum of the San Francisco Gas and Electric 
Company, represented by Garret McEnerney; T. V. Halsey, repre- 
sented by Bert Schlesinger, William P. Humphries and D. M. Del- 
mas. The several attorneys represented the best legal ability ob- 
tainable in San Francisco. No less than fifty-two attorneys, all 
working to the same end, were employed by the several graft 
defendants. 



244 The Real Fight Begins 

Just before the principal indictments were brought, 
for example, the San Francisco merchants had given 
a banquet to celebrate the progress which San Fran- 
cisco had made during the first year following the 
fire. 264 Langdon and Heney were given places of honor. 
They were the heroes of the occasion. Every reference 
to their work was signal for tremendous demonstra- 
tion. There was no suggestion then that the pursuit 
of criminals would "hurt business." 

"A severe earthquake," observed Frank J. Symmes, 
president of the Merchants' Association, "is a serious 
misfortune, and a great conflagration a great trial, and 
each awake the sympathy of the Nation, but a corrupt 
government is at once a crime and a disgrace and 
brings no sympathy." 

"We foresee," said Bishop William Ford Nichols, 
another of the speakers of the evening, "the greater 
San Francisco. We mean to make it fairer to the eye. 
But how about making it better? Size and sin may 
go together. Rehabilitated buildings may house de- 
bilitated character." 

A month later, after indictments had been brought 
against some of the most prominent business men of 
the city, word went out that steps would be taken to 
disqualify every member of the Grand Jury who had at- 
tended that merchants' banquet. 

The Grand Jurors were again called to the witness 
stand and put through a grilling to determine whether 
or not they were biased. Rudolph Spreckels was under 



264 The Merchants' Association banquet, April 18, 1907, the first 
anniversary of the great earthquake and fire. 



The Real Fight Begins 245 

examination for hours in efforts to show that his mo- 
tives in backing the Prosecution were bad. 205 

Every step of the proceedings at the organization 
of the Grand Jury was scrutinized. The question of 
the method of employing the stenographer to the Grand 
Jury was made subject of hours of argument. If she 
were irregularly employed, it was held, she was an un- 
authorized person in the Grand Jury room and her un- 
warranted presence sufficient to invalidate the indict- 
ments. Garret McEnerney, representing Eugene de 
Sabla, Jr., Frank Drum and John Martin, whose indict- 
ments grew out of the bribery of the Supervisors to fix 
the gas rate at 85 cents per 1000 cubic feet instead of 
75 cents, was the first to raise this question. But at- 
torneys for other defendants took it up and seriously 
considered it as valid objection to the sufficiency of the 
indictments. A further point was raised by several of 
the defendants that the stenographer had not been prop- 
erly sworn. The question was seriously debated, 
whether she had looked at Prosecutor Heney or Fore- 



265 At one of the examinations of Spreckels, Attorney A. A. 
Moore, representing the United Railroads, is reported as demand- 
ing: 

"Can it be that we have got to a point where a private prosecu- 
tion, hiring a lawyer, hiring an attorney, hiring a detective — and 
then when indictments are found that you cannot set them aside? 
That is the line of testimony I intend to pursue." 

"In addition," said Attorney Stanley Moore, A. A. Moore's asso- 
ciate in the defense, "we expect to show that Mr. Spreckels is the 
head and shoulders of a large street railroad company, organized 
by himself for the purpose of putting the United Railroads out of 
business.' 

"I will say this again," went on Moore, "we will prove the state- 
ment that we have made, to wit: that Mr. Heney was an unauthor- 
ized person before the Grand Jury by reason of the fact that he 
was during all that time privately employed by Rudolph Spreckels, 
who was entertaining a plan to destroy the property of the United 
Railroads, and to carry out that plan they gave immunity to the 
Board of Supervisors to carry out their bidding." 



246 The Real Fight Begins 

man Oliver at the moment she was sworn to secrecy. 266 

266 The Chronicle, in its issue of June 7, 1907, in discussing the 
delaying- tactics of the defendants, said: 

"It cannot be too often repeated that in connection with the 
boodle cases there are but two questions which are of importance, 
and those are, first: Did the accused commit bribery within the 
meaning of the statute? and secondly, If not, did they commit 
bribery in such a way that the law cannot reach them? Both 
these questions will be settled by the evidence in the trials. If 
the verdict is that the accused committed bribery within the mean- 
ing of the statute, they will go to State's prison. If the evidence 
shows that they committed bribery so skilfully that it cannot be 
legally proved, they will not go to the penitentiary, but they will 
stand disgraced men and unconvicted felons. In either case all that 
an honest man prizes most highly is at stake, and as all claim to 
be as innocent as unborn babes, one would expect the band to be 
tumbling over each other in their eagerness to be first to face a 
jury and rehabilitate their damaged reputations by a public demon- 
stration of their untarnished character. 

"Quite the contrary. So far from their taking this obvious 
course to secure justification the aid of a shining and costly array 
of legal talent is invoked to prevent, if it may be possible, any 
show-down whatever of the evidence in any court. They object to 
even coming into court and pleading whether they are guilty or not. 
It is declared that it will be alleged that the purported Grand Jury, 
which went through the form of indicting them, is an illegal body, 
with no standing whatever in court, and that, therefore, there is no 
indictment at all. It will not, apparently, be claimed that the mem- 
bers of the alleged Grand Jury were not discreet citizens, legally 
competent to serve as Grand Jurors; that they were not regularly 
appointed as such according to law; that they were not duly sworn 
into office, or that, having listened to sworn evidence delivered 
under the forms of law, these reputable citizens, upon that evi- 
dence, accuse them of felony. None of these things, it is supposed, 
will be alleged. What is to be alleged, it is said, is that the number 
of names from which the Grand Jury was drawn was 113, instead 
of 125, which, by the way, is promptly denied. What earthly 
bearing could that have, if it were true, on the guilt or innocence 
of the men accused of felony? Can it be conceived as possible, 
even if that were proved, that our laws are drawn so completely 
in the interest of criminals as to enable men accused of felony to 
escape trial? 

"The personal character and qualifications of the Grand Jurors 
were fully brought out in the Ruef case. For weeks they were sub- 
jected to a grilling which it was a disgrace to our laws to permit. 
That was not repeated in the Schmitz case. In that the counsel 
of the accused have seemed to be relying for overturning a convic- 
tion on the alleged over-zealousness of the prosecuting officer. 
Again, what has that to do with the guilt or innocence of the 
accused, even if it has occurred? A District Attorney is in posses- 
sion of all the evidence, and if that is such as to arouse his indig- 
nation, shall the people thereby be deprived of all remedy? Obvious 
misconduct of an attorney is more likely to injure the people than 
the accused. It could hardly have any other influence on the ver- 
dict of a jury. If no crimes are to be punished in which there is 
energetic prosecution, which may occasionally involve expressions 
which the law discountenances, we may about as well shut up our 
criminal courts. Almost any attorney may be baited into making 
uncourteous remarks. Happily the Supreme Court has recently 
decided that no matter what the District Attorney does, a felon 
duly convicted upon sufficient evidence shall not thereby be turned 
loose. And that is as it should be." 



The Real Fight Begins 247 

Another point was brought up by the defendants in 
the United Railroads bribery case, that inasmuch as the 
defendants Calhoun, Mullally and Ford, had been called 
to the Grand Jury room and compelled to fall back 
upon their constitutional rights to avoid testifying, that 
they had been placed in a prejudicial position before the 
Grand Jury, which constituted reversible error. 267 An- 
other objection was that the Grand Jury box had been 

267 Heney in court made caustic answer to this argument: "After 
the Supervisors had confessed," he began, "and sixteen of them had 
testified that they had been paid $4,000 apiece to vote for the 
trolley franchise, these defendants thought in their own minds that 
they were so connected with the crime that Patrick Calhoun, 
Thornwell Mullally and Tirey L. Ford each made a public explana- 
tion in the press, denying that they had bribed a city official. A 
crime had been committed, and the first question to be asked was, 
Who had the motive? The Supervisors had testified that they 
received the money from Gallagher, and Gallagher had testified 
that he received it from Ruef. Did Abraham Ruef own the trolley 
lines? The question arose as to who had the motive. Ford and 
Mullally came to me personally and told me they had not bribed a 
city official. Wasn't that an explanation? Will it not be an ex- 
planation when these defendants are put on trial that they will say 
it was an attorney's fee? If, under these circumstances, the" Grand 
Jury cannot call the officers of the company to learn who author- 
ized the giving of the bribe money, what would an investigation 
be worth? If we had not called them, then you would have heard 
the other cry, that this was a conspiracy to destroy the good name 
of Patrick Calhoun. 

"If it had been a poor, ignorant man, or a helpless woman — if 
the Grand Jury had dragged her from the jail and compelled her 
to testify against herself, and she had not known what her consti- 
tutional right was, it would have been a different picture. But 
these four gentlemen are learned in the law. One of them had 
been Attorney-General of this State, another had been his assistant 
in that office for four years. Mullally is an attorney and Patrick 
Calhoun is an attorney whose mind is equal to that of any man's 
in California. 

"Advised of their rights! Why, they came in there on a sub- 
poena which General Ford has declared in his own affidavit was 
faulty and ineffective. They came on a defective process, which 
they knew to be defective. They refused to be sworn, and they 
were not sworn, and they left the Grand Jury room without having 
answered a question, for the purpose of coming solemnly here to 
get these indictments set aside on the grounds that their constitu- 
tional rights have been invaded. That's trifling with the law. 
Laws weren't made to juggle with. Laws were made for the pro- 
tection of the innocent. 

"They knew they didn't have to go, but they went, and they 
refused to testify; and now they want the indictments set aside 
because their great constitutional rights have been tampered with. 

"They say he could have waived the point and testified, but be- 
cause he refused and walked out he has been deprived of his consti- 
tutional right." 



248 The Real Fight Begins 

destroyed in the great fire of 1906, and that no order 
had come from any department of the Superior Court 
ordering its restoration. Again, it was asserted, that 
Grand Juror James E. Gordan was a member of the 
Grand Jury panel of 1906, while the other Grand Jurors 
were chosen from the 1907 list. Indictments brought 
by a Grand Jury thus constituted were claimed to be 
without effect. 

Had any one of these and many other similar ob- 
jections been sustained, all indictments against the graft 
defendants would have been invalidated. Every objec- 
tion had to be met. Days and weeks were spent by 
the District Attorney's office in meeting, or preparing 
to meet objections which to the layman appear trifling 
and ridiculous. 

In the midst of this technical fight to have the in- 
dictments against them set aside, the graft defendants 
received aid from an unlooked-for source. Sympathizers 
with the United Railroads conductors and motormen, 
then on strike, whose union Patrick Calhoun was at the 
time endeavoring to crush — and finally did crush — 
started an independent attack upon the Grand Jury. 

Four union sympathizers had been indicted in con- 
nection with street riots. Their attorneys, before Su- 
perior Judge Cook, raised the point that as the Oliver 
Grand Jury had continued in service after a new panel 
had been drawn in the office of the clerk and put on 
file, the term of the Grand Jury's service had expired. 
It was, therefore, no longer part of the machinery of 
the Court and had no power as an inquisitorial body. 
Under this interpretation, not only would the indict- 



The Real Fight Begins 249 

ments against the strikers be invalidated, but those 
against the alleged bribe-givers also. 268 Thus four of 
Mr. Calhoun's striking carmen, in their efforts to evade 
trial on charges growing out of opposition to the 
United Railroads, were making stronger fight to release 
Mr. Calhoun from indictment than Mr. Calhoun, al- 
though enjoying the ablest legal counsel that money 
could secure, had been able to make for himself. 

Eventually, these technical objections were decided 
adversely to the defense; the validity of the Oliver 
Grand Jury was never successfully attacked. But the 
technical objections raised caused delays which the de- 
fense was able to put to good account. While the 
prosecution was battling to force the graft cases to 
trial on their merits, the graft defense was conducting 
a publicity campaign to misrepresent and undermine 
the prosecution. The astonishing success of these ef- 
forts were to appear later. By 1909, for example, in 
the city which when the graft prosecution opened, the 
practically universal sentiment was for the crushing out 
of corruption, there was strong opinion that the prose- 
cution of influential offenders had gone too far, had 
been injudiciously conducted, was "hurting business," 



268 In commenting upon the point raised by the indicted carmen, 
the Chronicle, in its issue of July 30, 1907, said: 

"In attacking- the legality of the Grand Jury the attorneys of the 
carmen indicted for making assaults with deadly weapons and 
throwing bricks at street cars may have played into the hands of 
their arch enemy, the president of the United Railroads. " If the 
Supreme Court should hold that the Oliver Grand Jury passed out 
of legal existence when the 144 new names were selected by the 
twelve Superior Judges, the indictments against those connected 
with the telephone, gas, trolley and Parkside briberies would, be set 
aside and all the work of the prosecution would have to be don© 
over. It would be a curious outcome to the efforts of an attorney 
to free men charged with crimes which the unions condemn, but 
it would not be the first instance of a miscarriage of the purposes 
of organized labor." 



250 The Real Fight Begins 

and that for the good of the community the graft cases 
should be dropped. 269 

The evident policy of the defense was to undermine 
the prosecution and create public opinion against it, 
until both prosecution and community should be worn 
out, and made to quit. 

The principal attack was through the newspapers. 
The prosecution had not been long at work before the 
weekly papers, with few exceptions, were devoting the 
bulk of their space to ridiculing and vilifying all who 
were in any way responsible for the graft exposures and 
impuning their motives. 

What these publications received for their work is 
indicated by the subsidies paid one of the least of San 
Francisco weekly papers — a publication since suspended 
— the Mission Times. 

In January, 1907, a man by the name of Williams 
purchased the Times for seventy-five dollars, giving his 
unsecured note for that amount. In less than a month 
the new proprietor had received $500 from an agent of 
the United Railroads. Later on, he received a regular 
subsidy of $250 a week, something more than $1,000 a 
month, which continued for thirteen weeks. The sub- 
sidy was later reduced to fifty dollars a week. But 
during the interim between the weekly subsidy contracts, 
lump sums were paid. It is estimated that in little 
over a year, Williams received from agents of the 
United Railroads upwards of $7,000. The Times at 
first covertly, and later openly, opposed the prosecution. 
If the unimportant Mission Times, which at the open- 

269 Some went so far when examined for jury service at the 
later graft trials as to say they would not vote to convict. 



The Real Fight Begins 251 

ing of the year 1907 had changed hands for seventy- 
five dollars, received upwards of $7,000 from agents 
of the defense, the not unreasonable question may be 
asked, what did more important weekly papers, whose 
graft prosecution policy was practically the same as 
that of the Times, receive? In this connection it is 
pertinent to say that the majority of these publications 
gave evidence during 1907, of a prosperity that was 
quite as mysterious, if not as suggestive, as had been 
the prosperity of the Schmitz-Ruef Supervisors during 
1906. 

As has been seen, the entire daily press of San Fran- 
cisco was, in the beginning, heartily in accord with the 
prosecution. Gradually, however, The Examiner and 
The Chronicle 270 shifted their policy. Even while The 
Chronicle was backing the prosecution in its editorial 
columns, its reports of the proceedings at the various 

270 The graft investigation uncovered something of the curious 
ethics governing this sort of publicity. For example, Mark L. 
Gerstle of the law firm of Thomas, Gerstle and Frick, who acted as 
attorneys for the Home Telephone Company, testified before the 
Grand Jury that the company paid the San Francisco Chronicle 
$10,000 to educate the people to the idea of a competing telephone 
system. The testimony was as follows: 

"Q. During that time in 1905, were any newspapers paid to 
help the good cause? A. Yes. 

"Q. What papers? A. Only one. 

"Q. What paper was that? A. Chronicle. 

"Q. How much was paid to it? A. $10,000. 

"Q. What were the terms of that employment? A. The object 
of paying that money was to educate the people to the idea of a 
competitive telephone system. There seemed to be a prejudice among 
everybody, or a great many people, as to the value or necessity of 
another telephone system, and we could not obtain the assistance of 
any newspaper in that work without paying for it. Some required 
it in the shape of advertising which we did not need — don't do any 
good — others wouldn't take it in that way; the Chronicle wouldn't 
take it that way and we were forced in order to have some news- 
paper assist us in that work, to pay the price which was $10,000. 

"Q. Did they give editorial work for that? A. No. They were 
supposed when the matters came up before the Board of Super- 
visors to write it up favorably, that is to say, talk about the advan- 
tage of a competitive telephone system in the way of keeping out a 
monopoly, and doing away with the poor system of the Pacific 
States." 



252 The Real Fight Begins 

hearings were colored in a way well-calculated to under- 
mine Langdon and his associates. 271 Gradually the 
covert opposition of its news columns became the open 
editorial policy of the paper. 

But the most effective opposition came from The 
Examiner. The Examiner supported the prosecution 
until the conviction of Schmitz and the change in the 
municipal administration. Failure to dictate the selec- 
tion of Mayor and Supervisors may have had more or 
less influence in the change of policy. At any rate, the 
invention of The Examiner's writers and artists was 
tortured to make the prosecution appear to disadvan- 
tage. 

The most tawdrily clever of The Examiner's efforts 
were the so-called "Mutt cartoons." The cartoons ap- 
peared from day to day, a continuous burlesque of the 
work of the prosecutors, and of the graft trials. 

Heney was pictured as "Beaney;" Detective Burns, 
as Detective "Tobasco;" James D. Phelan as "J. Tired 
Feeling;" Rudolph Spreckels, as "Pickles;" Superior 
Judges Dunne and Lawlor, before whom the graft 
cases were heard, as Judge "Finished" and Judge 
"Crawler," respectively. In these "Mutt cartoons" every 



271 The Chronicle's reports of the work of the Graft Prosecution 
are models of the journalism which strikes in the dark. When, for 
example, the defense called Rudolph Spreckels to the stand in its 
efforts to disqualify the Grand Jury, The Chronicle, while in its 
editorial columns condemning such proceedings, reported the inci- 
dent in its news columns as follows: 

"Spreckels, who had been keeping in the background, came for- 
ward, glancing furtively at Heney, whose lips were moving nerv- 
ously." In the column from which this quotation is taken, Heney 
is represented as replying "nervously" to charges made by attor- 
neys for the defense, and Spreckels, when a question was put to 
him as looking "appealingly" to the attorney representing the pros- 
ecution. But observers of the proceedings recall no perceptible 
nervousness on Heney's part, nor "furtive" nor "appealing" glances 
from Spreckels. 



The Rea4 Fight Begins 253 

phase of the prosecution was ridiculed. For example, 
when the excitement over the graft trials was at its 
height, there were rumors that the assassination of 
Heney or Langdon would be attempted. In ridiculing 
this, The Examiner pictured "Beaney" with a cross on 
his neck where the bullet was to strike. A few weeks 
later, during the progress of one of the graft trials, 
Heney was shot down in open court, the bullet taking 
practically the same course which in the "Mutt" car- 
toon The Examiner had pictured. After the shooting 
of Heney, The Examiner discontinued the anti-prosecu- 
tion "Mutt cartoons." 

Mr. William Randolph Hearst's San Francisco Ex- 
aminer did effective service in discrediting the graft 
prosecution. But Mr. Hearst, with curious inconsist- 
ency, outside California, gave the prosecution his per- 
sonal endorsement. 

In his Labor Day address at the Jamestown Exposi- 
tion, September 3, 1907, for example, Mr. Hearst 
among other pleasing observations on the work of the 
San Francisco Graft Prosecution, said: "You hear 
much today of how a Mayor of San Francisco has 
fallen, but you hear little of how powerful public service 
corporations tempted a wretched human being with great 
wealth and brought a once respected man to ruin and 
disgrace. You hear much of how a Mayor elected on 
a Union Labor ticket is in jail, but little of the fact that 
it was an honest District Attorney, elected on the same 
Union Labor ticket, who put him there, an honest Dis- 
trict Attorney, who is doing his best to put beside the 
Mayor the men really responsible for all this debauch- 
ery and dishonor. While it is the fashion to criticise 



254 The Real Fight Begins 

San Francisco just now, I venture to assert that the 
only difference between San Francisco and some other 
cities is that San Francisco is punishing her corrup- 
tionists. There is many an official elsewhere who has 
stolen office or dealt in public properties who would fare 
like Schmitz if there were more honest and fearless 
District Attorneys like Union Labor Langdon." 

Later on, after Ruef had been sent to the peniten- 
tiary, an article on the San Francisco Graft Prosecu- 
tion appeared in one of Mr. Hearst's magazines. 272 The 
article was printed under the signature of Mr. Edward 
H. Hamilton, one of the ablest of Mr. Hearst's em- 
ployees. Mr. Hamilton gave the credit for the work 
of the graft prosecution to Mr. Hearst and The Exam- 
iner. The men whose steadfastness of purposes and 
high integrity had made even approach to the prosecu- 
tion of influential offenders possible, upon whom Mr. 
Hearst's Examiner had poured ridicule and abuse, were 
more or less favorably mentioned in the article, but Mr. 
Hearst was given the bulk of the credit for what the 
prosecution had accomplished. In California, where 
The Examiner's treatment of the prosecution was well 
known, Mr. Hamilton's article was received with some 
amusement and not a little resentment. 273 

272 The Cosmopolitan, issue of July, 1911. 

273 The Sacramento Bee, in an editorial article, "Laureling the 
Brow of a Harlequin 'Reformer'," said of Mr. Hamilton's claims for 
Hearst: 

"The San Francisco Examiner is advertising an article by Ed- 
ward H. Hamilton in the July Cosmopolitan — an article which is a 
tissue of the most shameless misrepresentations from beginning to 
end — an article which falsely and most mendaciously credits the 
conviction and imprisonment of Abraham Ruef to William Randolph 
Hearst. 

"The Cosmopolitan is a Hearst magazine; Hamilton, a Hearst 
writer. Undoubtedly in New York many will believe Hamilton has 
written the truth. Every man in California knows otherwise. 

"It is strange that a writer with the ability and the reputation 



The Real Fight Begins 255 

Although, with few exceptions, the policy of the San 
Francisco press was adverse to the prosecution, the 
principal interior papers gave Langdon and his asso- 
ciates loyal support. But eventually a chain of papers 
covering the greater part of the interior of northern and 
central California was enlisted on the side of the de- 

of Edward H. Hamilton would for any consideration write an 
article so brazenly false that one marvels at the audacity alike of 
the eulogist and the laureled. 

"For Hearst had no more to do with the fate of Ruef than Ruef's 
own lawyers. He labored on the same side — to make the graft 
prosecution so unpopular that no conviction of the guilty could 
result. Day in and day out the Examiner reeked with slanders 
aimed at the men who were endeavoring to place Ruef behind the 
bars. 

"Day in and day out, the most malicious cartoons were pub- 
lished against Spreckels, Heney, Phelan, Burns and all who were 
battling for the punishment of public and semi-public scoundrels. 
Day in and day out in the Examiner Judge Wm. P. Lawlor was 
referred to as 'Crawler.' 

"Day in and day out the reports of the trials were so colored, 
so exaggerated in favor of the defense and so emasculated when 
the prosecution scored a point, that the Examiner was ranked with 
the gutter weeklies as a friend, champion and defender "of the 
indicted, and a most venomous traitor to good government and to 
public honor. 

"The Examiner knew the feeling against it in San Francisco. 
For, when Heney was shot and there was danger of mob violence, 
the editorial rooms of the Examiner were barricaded and the Exam- 
iner men were supplied with rifles. 

"And their fears were to a certain extent justified. One of the 
vilest cartoons against Heney pictured 'Beany' in danger of his 
life from imaginary assassins. On 'Beany's' neck was a mark to 
show where the bullet was to strike. By an extraordinary coinci- 
dence, the bullet that struck Heney down at the Ruef trial found 
almost the identical spot that a few days before had been marked 
on 'Beany's' neck in Hearst's humorous cartoon. 

"On the night of the day that Heney was shot, indignant San 
Francisco in an immense mass meeting thundered its denunciation 
of Hearst and the Examiner. And graft-prosecution leaders found 
it necessary to plead with an inflamed populace to attempt no 
violence. 

"No more 'Beany' cartoons made their appearance. The Exam- 
iner wrote of all connected with the graft prosecution in terms of 
respect. But this repentance born of fear did not prevent Cali- 
fornians by the thousands stopping the Examiner. 

"The Cosmopolitan eulogy of Hearst in the graft-prosecution 
matter is a long line of known misstatements from beginning to 
end. 

"It is humiliating to have to record that a man of Ned Hamil- 
ton's talents could so debase them as to present in the light of a 
militant Paul of the graft prosecution one who was its most con- 
temptible Judas Iscariot. 

"Regrettable indeed is it that 

"Poor Ned 'must torture his invention 
To flatter rogues or lose his pension.' " 



256 The Real Fight Begins 

fense. The papers were started or purchased by a news- 
paper publishing company known as the Calkins Syn- 
dicate. 

The Calkins people had for several years been iden- 
tified with a number of unimportant papers, printed in 
the interior. Suddenly, from publishing obscure weeklies 
and dailies, the Calkins Syndicate became one of the 
most important, if not the most important, publishing 
concern in California. A modern printing plant, one of 
the finest on the Pacific Coast, was installed at San 
Francisco. The establishment took over much of the 
printing of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, in- 
cluding the printing of the railroad corporation's month- 
ly, The Sunset Magazine. The Sacramento Union, the 
most important California morning newspaper printed 
north of San Francisco, and the Fresno Herald, an aft- 
ernoon daily, were purchased outright. A bid was made 
for the San Francisco Post, 274 but terms could not 
be made. The Calkins people accordingly started the 
San Francisco Globe, an afternoon daily newspaper. 
Less important papers were established at various points. 
In an increditably short period, the Calkins Syndicate 
had a chain of newspapers covering the greater part of 
northern and central California. 

The distinctive feature of these publications was their 
opposition to the San Francisco graft prosecution. But 
the abuse of the Calkins newspapers was not so cleverly 
presented as in the Examiner, nor so adroitly handled 
as in the Chronicle. So violent were the Calkins papers' 

, 274 After the failure of the Calkins syndicate its successors to 
the ownership of "The Globe," purchased the Post and combined the 
two in one publication under the name of Post-Globe. The policy of 
the paper was not changed. 



The Real Fight Begins 257 

attacks, in fact, that they injured rather than assisted 
the defendants' cause. This was generally recognized. 
The Calkins Syndicate, after losing whatever effective- 
ness it may have had, eventually went into bankruptcy. 275 

275 The astonishing- business conditions under which the Calkins 
Syndicate was conducted were brought out during the proceedings 
in bankruptcy. For example: The Union Trust Company, closely 
connected financially with the Southern Pacific Company, and the 
United Railroads, advanced the syndicate $175,000. 

To secure this loan, the Syndicate gave the Union Trust Com- 
pany as collateral 1251 shares of the 2500 shares of the capital stock 
of the Sacramento Publishing Company, 150,100 shares of the 300,000 
shares of the capital stock of the Calkins Publishing House, the 
majority of the capital stock of the Fresno Publishing Company, 
which published the Fresno "Herald" and bonds of the company 
publishing the San Francisco "Globe," valued at $30,000. 

This loan remained unpaid at the time of the Syndicate's failure. 
The stock of the Fresno Publishing Company sold under the hammer 
for $4,850. The 1251 shares of the Sacramento Publishing Company 
were estimated to be worth $51,000. The stock of the Calkins Pub- 
lishing House was of doubtful value. The Union Trust Company, 
before the failure, released the Globe bonds without payment of the 
note or consideration of other security. This left the stock of the 
Sacramento Publishing Company, valued at perhaps $51,000, as sure 
security for the $175,000 loan. 

But this stock was curiously involved. The entire stock of the 
company consisted of 2500 shares of a par value of $100 a share. 
The corporation's property consisted of the Sacramento Union news- 
paper and the real property where the paper was published. 

Soon after purchasing the Sacramento stock, the Calkins Syndi- 
cate organized a second Sacramento Publishing Company. The first 
company — that of the 2500 shares — was organized as The Sacra- 
mento Publishing Company. The Calkins people in organizing the 
second company dropped the "The," calling it "Sacramento Pub- 
lishing Company." The second company was organized with a 
capital stock of 300,000 shares, — 175,000 shares common stock and 
125,000 shares preferred. 

The Syndicate took 100,000 shares of this preferred stock to the 
London, Paris and American Bank, and used it with certain stock 
of the Nevada County Publishing Company, another Calkins con- 
cern, as collateral to secure a loan of $30,000. Of the 25,000 (pre- 
ferred) shares remaining, the Calkins people sold 10,000 shares for 
money. The 15,000 shares remaining, Mr. Willard P. Calkins, head 
of the Calkins Syndicate, took to compensate him for his peculiar 
labors in the transaction. This disposed of the 125,000 shares of 
preferred stock in the second company. 

The 175,000 shares of common stock still remained to be disposed 
of. Mr. Calkins, as president of the Calkins Syndicate, wanting 
more money, took the 175,000 shares to the London, Paris and 
American Bank, and pledged them as part collateral for a second 
loan. He did more — he pledged the "Union's" Associated Press 
franchise as further security for this second loan. 

Eventually, the second loan was paid off, but the London, Paris 
and American Bank continued to hold the 175,000 shares of common 
stock and the Associated Press franchise, under an alleged col- 
lateral agreement, as further security for the first loan of $30,000. 
The first loan was eventually reduced to $16,085.02. When the 

9 



258 The Real Fight Begins 

Almost as effective as the newspaper publicity against 
the prosecution, was the opposition of fashionable social 
circles and of the clubs. The graft defendants became 
much in evidence at the best clubs in the city. To be 
sure, their persistent appearance all but disrupted some 
of the clubs, members in sympathy with the enforce- 
ment of the law openly objecting to their presence. 276 

crash came, two Sacramento Publishing Companies, one with a 
"The" and one without a "The," claimed ownership of the Sacra- 
mento "Union." A majority of the stock of the first company was 
pledged to the Union Trust Company as part collateral for a loan 
of $175,000; 175,000 shares of the common stock of the second com- 
pany and 100,000 shares of its preferred stock, together with the 
paper's Associated Press franchise, were in the hands of the suc- 
cessor of the London, Paris and American Bank, the Anglo & Lon- 
don, Paris National Bank, to secure a balance of $16,085.02 due on 
an original loan of $30,000. 

But there were further complications. The first Sacramento 
Publishing Company, the directors and officers of which were the 
directors and officers of the second company, transferred the cor- 
poration's office building to the second corporation. The second cor- 
poration thereupon mortgaged this real estate to the People's Bank 
of Sacramento to secure a second loan of $20,000. 

When Mr. I. W. Hellman, Jr., manager of the Union Trust Com- 
pany — also one of the prominent managers of the Hellman move- 
ment in local politics — was on the witness stand, at the time of the 
Calkins investigation, he was asked to whom he looked for the pay- 
ment of the $175,000. 

"To the Calkins Syndicate," replied Mr. Hellman. 

276 The presence of President Calhoun at an Olympic Club din- 
ner in July, 1907, met with strong objection. Calhoun was not a 
member of the club. He had, it was charged, been brought there 
by one of the employees of the Southern Pacific Company, who 
was a member. His appearance led to open protest. It was finally 
arranged that objection should not be made to him, on condition 
that he would not attempt to make an address. But the defense 
claque had evidently planned otherwise. A demonstration was 
started for Calhoun. He began a speech which brought members 
to their feet in protest. 

"I object," said Dr. Charles A. Clinton, one of the oldest mem- 
bers of the club, "to the presence here of Mr. Calhoun and I pro- 
test against his making a speech on the ground that the gentleman 
has been indicted by the Grand Jury for a most heinous offense; 
that he has been charged with bribing and debauching public offi- 
cials, and should not be a guest of the club until he can come with 
clean hands. I do not pass upon this man's innocence or guilt, 
but feel that until his hands are clean he should not come to the 
club." 

The outcome was that, by action of the Board of Directors, Dr. 
Clinton was expelled from the club. The course was generally de- 
nounced. "The Olympic Club of San Francisco," said the Sacra- 
mento Bee, "has shamed itself in the eyes of every decent, honest, 
manly, self-respecting citizen in this State by its recent act, 
through its Board of Director?, In expelling Dr. Charles A. Clinton 



The Real Fight Begins 259 

But in the end, the defendants prevailed and were loudly 
apparent at the principal clubs of the city even while 
under the inconvenience of indictment. 

San Francisco's so-called fashionable society was, 
during the graft trials, practically organized as an ad- 
junct of the defense. Those in accord with the prosecu- 
tion were cut off visiting lists. Some of the non-resident 
indicted ones brought their families to San Francisco. 
Their wives and daughters at once became prominent 
in social matters. It was the refinement of the custom 
of bringing in "the wife and innocent children" of the 
defendant at a criminal trial. 

This character of defense was most effective. The 



from membership. The offense of Dr. Clinton was merely that he 
protested, as every other honorable member of the Olympic Club 
should have protested, not so much against the plotted appearance 
in that club at a banquet, of Patrick Calhoun, indicted for high 
crimes, as against the subsequent effort on the part of some mem- 
bers of the Olympic Club to force Calhoun to make a speech and 
become the hero of the affair." 

When the American battleship fleet visited San Francisco in 
1908, much opposition developed over the efforts of upholders of 
the defense to have Calhoun invited to the banquet given in honor 
of the visitors. Calhoun's representatives finally overcame the 
resistance, and Calhoun was invited. 

Calhoun's social and other activities during this period resulted 
in much newspaper discussion. "The action of Patrick Calhoun," 
said the Examiner, "in appointing himself, Thornwell Mullally and 
William Abbott, all under indictment on bribery charges, as dele- 
gates to the Industrial Peace Conference caused such indignation 
and protest on the part of the other delegates that a committee on 
arrangements last evening demanded that Calhoun withdraw the 
names of himself and his two subordinates and substitute others." 
Mrs. Eleanor Martin gave a dinner in honor of Congressman and 
Mrs. Nicholas Longworth on the occasion of the visit of President 
Roosevelt's daughter to San Francisco. Mrs. Martin ranked as 
highest of San Francisco's so-called social leaders. The alleged 
fact that neither Calhoun nor Mullally was present on that im- 
portant occasion was made subject of much curious newspaper 
comment. The "social side" of the graft defense not infrequently 
furnished saving comedy for an overstrained situation. It was, 
however, most effective in breaking down the prosecution. "So- 
cially" the defense had decidedly the better of the situation. Cal- 
houn, for example, became a member of the Olympic Club. There 
was a deal of newspaper protest at the club's action in admitting 
him, and defense of the club and other comedy. But Calhoun wore 
the "winged O" emblem of the Olympic Club on his automobile, 
nevertheless. 



260 The Real Fight Begins 

charming entertainment of those wives and daughters of 
indicted magnates who engaged in the social publicity 
campaign in the interests of their troubled male relations, 
went far toward building up public opinion against their 
prosecutors. The supporters of the prosecutors were 
treated with scant ceremony. To be a supporter of the 
prosecution was not regarded as "good form." All in 
all, the social side was one of the cleverest and most 
effective features of the publicity campaign carried on 
by the graft defense. 277 

The boycott of those in sympathy with the prosecu- 
tion extended to the larger business world as well as to 
exclusive social circles. When, for example, the Amer- 
ican battleship fleet visited San Francisco on its tour 
around the world in 1908, the committee appointed by 
the Mayor to arrange fitting reception and entertain- 
ment of its visitors, organized by making James D. 
Phelan, prominently associated with Mr. Spreckels in 
the Graft Prosecution, chairman. 

That Mr. Phelan should be made head of the com- 
mittee, or even identified with it, gave serious offense to 
the large business and financial interests that did not 
approve the prosecution. 278 The large interests thus 

277 One of the most amusing experiences which the writer had 
during this period was in listening to a woman, prominent in 
Episcopalian Church affairs, as she voiced her indignation because 
of a slight put upon her at an important social event of her church, 
at which daughters of one of the graft defendants had place in the 
receiving line. 

278 Some of the letters of refusal to contribute are of curious 
interest. For example, Timothy Hopkins, a capitalist of large af- 
fairs, wrote curtly: "Yours of the 4th in reference to contributions 
for the entertainment of the United States Fleet has been received. 
I am not contributing. Yours truly, TIMOTHY HOPKINS." 

E. E. Calvin, for the Southern Pacific, wrote "that under present 
conditions we cannot afford to contribute money to any purpose 
other than charity or a pressing public necessity." 

A. H. Payson, for the Santa Fe, wrote that under his instruc- 
tions he "was not able to make a subscription for this purpose in 
behalf of the Atchison Company." 



The Real Fight Begins 261 

offended refused to contribute to the reception fund. 
William C. Ralston, United States Sub-Treasurer at San 
Francisco, and treasurer of the Fleet Reception Commit- 
tee, reported to the committee that several large banks 
and public service corporations would not contribute to 
the reception of the fleet unless Mr. Phelan left the 
reception committee. 279 

The committee, refusing to submit to this arrogant 
dictation, accordingly proceeded to the entertainment of 
the fleet without assistance from the anti-prosecution 
financiers and institutions. The smaller merchants, as- 
sisted by those banks and enterprises which had not been 
offended by the proceedings against the corrupters of the 
municipal government, contributed upwards of $75,000. 
The reception to the fleet was thus carried to successful 
conclusion without the assistance of the graft defense 
element. 

279 Mr. Ralston, in an interview printed in the San Francisco 
Examiner, September 26, 1908, said of this incident: 

"The true facts of the case are that when P. N. Lilienthal and 
myself called on many of the banks and all of the public utility 
corporations they came out boldly and stated that they would not 
give one dollar while Phelan was Chairman of the Executive Com- 
mittee, or connected with the reception of the fleet. 

"Some of the banks that refused are the Crocker National Bank 
and the Wells-Fargo National. Some of the other banks only gave 
$100 when they would have given much larger amounts. They dis- 
liked Phelan. Among the corporations were the Telephone Com- 
pany, the Spring Valley Water Company, and the Gas and Electric 
Light Company. The Southern Pacific and Santa Fe refused to 
subscribe and it is presumed their reasons were the same as the 
other corporations. 

"When I learned the true situation," Mr. Ralston went on, as he 
widened the mouth of the bag for the certain escape of the cat, "I 
went before the Executive Committee, at a meeting at which Mr. 
Phelan was present, and guaranteed the sum of $25,000 more if 
Mr. Phelan resign or step out. I even went further and said that 
besides guaranteeing $25,000, I felt assured that the sum of $50,000 
could be easily collected if Mr. Phelan would drop out. This Mr. 
Phelan refused to do. These matters all came up in executive 
meetings." 

In this connection it is interesting to note that at the 1914 elec- 
tion in California, Mr. Phelan was elected to represent the State in 
the United States Senate, while Mr. Ralston was defeated at the 
Republican primaries for nomination for Governor. 



262 The Real Fight Begins 

In the work of undermining the prosecution, the hum- 
bler circles of municipal life were not neglected. The 
claquer in labor union, and wherever groups of laboring 
men and women met, was quite as active as his prototype 
at club and exclusive function. In labor circles the pros- 
ecution was described as a movement to discredit labor 
and to disrupt the unions. Here, Rudolph Spreckels was 
described as the unrelenting foe of labor organizations. 
At club and function, on the other hand, the prosecu- 
tion was condemned as agent of "labor organization and 
anarchy," and Mr. Spreckels denounced as a man who 
had "gone back on his class." In all quarters stories 
were circulated, questioning Spreckels' motives. The 
most persistent charge against him was that he had 
started a street-car system of his own, and had insti- 
tuted the graft prosecution to drive the United Rail- 
roads out of business. This story was told and retold, 
although the purposes for which Mr. Spreckels had con- 
templated engaging in the street-car business were well 
known. 280 It was quite as well known, too, that the 
briberies alleged against officials of the United Railroads 
were committed long after the graft prosecution had 
been inaugurated. 

Heney 281 was also made target for criticisms. His 

280 See Chapter III. 

28i President Calhoun's denunciation of Heney was scarcely con- 
sistent with the high regard in which Heney was at the opening of 
the prosecution, held by the United Railroads' executives So well 
did they think of Heney that they selected him to sit on the Board 
of Arbitration which met late in 1906 to adjust differences between 
the United Railroads and its employees. This fact was given by 
Acting Mayor Gallagher as one of the reasons for removing Lang- 
don from office, in October, 1906, when the Graft Prosecution opened. 
Specification 7 of Gallagher's order removing Langdon because of 
the appointment of Heney reads: "Specification 7, That said Fran- 
cis J. Heney at and prior to the time of his appointment as assist- 
ant district attorney was the representative of the corporation con- 
trolling the street-car system of said city and county (The United 



The Real Fight Begins 263 

whole life was gone over in the search for flaws. It was 
discovered that in self-defense he had, years before, shot 
a man in Arizona. 282 This was made basis of a charge 
that Heney had committed murder. The new version of 
the Arizona incident was fairly shouted from San Fran- 
cisco housetops. 

Heney was denounced as a "special prosecutor, a 
human bloodhound, engaged in hounding of men to the 
penitentiary." It was charged against him that he had 
received excessive fees from corporations ; that he had 
accepted fees from the Federal government while acting 
as deputy to the San Francisco District Attorney, and 
that therefore his San Francisco employment was ille- 
gal ; 283 that he had been a drunkard. 



Railroads), in a certain dispute between said corporation and its 
employees. That the appointment of said Heney to said office will, 
in regard to the enforcement of law against said corporation, be 
prejudicial and detrimental to the interests of said city and 
county." 

Heney resigned his position as arbitrator in the United Rail- 
roads controversy soon after the prosecution opened. 

282 The graft defendants sent men to Arizona to have Heney 
indicted, charging murder of a Dr. Handy. Tears before, Heney 
had taken the case of Handy's wife in divorce proceedings, after 
other attorneys had declined it because of fear of Handy. Handy 
had boasted that he would kill the man who took his wife's case. 
After Heney had agreed to represent Mrs. Handy, Handy an- 
nounced that he would kill Heney with Heney' s own gun. He 
actually attempted this, and Heney, in self-defense, shot him. 
Heney was exonerated at the time. When the graft trials opened, 
first representatives of Ruef, and then representatives of the United 
Railroads went to Arizona for the purpose of working up this case 
against Heney, and if possible secure his indictment for murder. 
Ruef's representatives even went so far as to attempt to secure the 
services of Handy's son to get Heney indicted. Young Handy went 
to Heney, told him what was going on, and offered to go to Arizona 
to protect Heney. But Heney declined to permit this sacrifice. 
Young Handy expressed gratitude for what Heney had done for his 
mother. Heney's brother, Ben Heney, with full knowledge of what 
was going on, watched the efforts of those who were endeavoring 
to make this case, long since disposed of, a matter of embarrass- 
ment to the prosecutor. As the graft defense investigators found 
nothing upon which to base a charge, this move against the graft 
prosecution failed. 

283 Dean John H. Wigmore of the Northwestern School of Law 
at Chicago, author of Wigmore on Evidence, made sharp reply to 



264 The Real Fight Begins 

A most effective attack consisted in charging connec- 
tion of the graft prosecution with the California Safe 
Deposit and Trust Company. 

This institution closed its doors during the 1907 
panic. It had carried an enormous volume of deposits. 
Thousands of homes were affected. The California 
Safe Deposit and Trust Company was, as a result, very 
unpopular. Stories were circulated that the company 
had backed the prosecution, and had contributed funds 
for its work. J. Dalzell Brown, one of the leading 
spirits of the company, was also described as one of 



this contention. In a letter to President Calhoun, dated August 10, 
1909. Dean Wigmore said: 

"Chicago, 87 Lake Street, 10 August, 1909. 
"Mr. Patrick Calhoun, San Francisco. 

"Sir: — Recently there arrived in my hands by mail, with no 
sender's address, a pamphlet of ninety pages, entitled 'Some Facts 
Regarding Francis J. Heney.' On page 12 your name appears as 
a printed signature. I am assuming that you caused the contents 
to be prepared and mailed. 

"The pamphlet contains assertions reflecting on the conduct of 
Francis J. Heney and the Federal Department of Justice, in taking 
part in the prosecution of a criminal charge of bribery in the State 
Court of California against yourself. The pamphlet contains no 
defense of yourself; it does not even mention your name, except 
as its signer and in the title of exhibits; much less does it allege 
or attempt to show your innocence. It merely asks an answer to 
'three important constitutional and moral questions' affecting Mr. 
Heney and the Department of Justice. 

"Before answering those questions, let me say that this does 
not appear to be the method of an innocent man. The public press 
has made notorious the charge against you and its prosecution by 
Mr. Heney. Thoughtful citizens everywhere have discussed it. 
Many (not including myself) had assumed that you were guilty. 
You now appear to have spent a large sum to print and circulate 
widely a pamphlet concerning the case. Anyone would expect to 
find the pamphlet devoted to showing your innocence; and thus to 
removing unfavorable opinions based on casual press dispatches. 
An honest man, desiring to stand well with honest fellow-citizens, 
and possessing means to print, would naturally take that course. 
You do not. Your pamphlet merely attacks the technical authority 
of one of the attorneys for the prosecution, incidentally abusing 
two judges. This is not the course of an innocent man. It is the 
course of a guilty man who desires to divert the attention of the 
tribunal of public opinion. The tradition is here fulfilled of the 
attorney's instructions to the barrister acting for his guilty client, 
'No case; abuse the opposing counsel.' I am compelled now to 
assume that you have no case, because all that your expensive 



The Real Fight Begins 265 

the prosecution's backers. It was shown at the Cal- 

pamphlet does is to abuse one of the counsel for the prosecution. 
Until now I have supposed it proper to suspend judgment. I do 
so no longer. 

"And what are your three 'constitutional and moral' questions, 
— since you have sent me a pamphlet asking an answer to them? 
I will answer them frankly. 

"1. Was Mr. Heney's payment by the Department of Justice 
covertly for the California prosecution but nominally for other and 
Federal services? 

"Answer: I do not know. But I and other honest citizens will 
presume in favor of the honesty, in this act, of a President, an 
Attorney-General, and an Assistant Attorney-General who proved 
in all other public acts that they were honest and courageous be- 
yond example, especially as against a man like yourself who pub- 
lishes a pamphlet based throughout on anonymous assertions. 

"2. Can a Federal Assistant Attorney-General, under Federal 
salary, lawfully act at the same time as State Assistant District 
Attorney? 

"Answer: As to this 'constitutional' question, I leave this to 
the courts, as you should. As to this 'moral' question, I say that 
it is moral for any Federal officer to help any State officer in the 
pursuit of crime, and that only guilty lawbreakers could be im- 
agined to desire the contrary. 

"3. Can a private citizen contribute money to help the State's 
prosecuting officers in the investigation and trial of a criminal 
charge? 

"Answer: He can; and it is stupid even to put the question. 
Under the original English jury-system (of which you received 
the benefit) and until the last century, the private citizen was 
usually obliged to pay the prosecuting expenses; for the State did 
not, and crime went unpunished otherwise. If nowadays, in any 
community, crime is again likely to go unpunished without the 
help of private citizens, there is no reason why we should not 
revert to the old system. As for Mr. Spreckels (the private citizen 
here named by you), his name should be held in honor, and will 
ever be, as against anything your pamphlet can say. As for Mr. 
Heney and his receipt of $47,500 officially and 'large sums of money 
additionally' from Mr. Spreckels, it may be presumed that he 
spent most of it on trial expenses, and did not keep it as a per- 
sonal reward. But even if he did so keep it, let me register the 
view that he is welcome to all this — and to more — if anybody will 
give it; that no money compensation is too high for such rare 
courage; that the moral courage displayed by him is as much 
entitled to high money compensation as the unprincipled com- 
mercial skill displayed by yourself — and this solely by the economic 
test of money value, — viz., demand and supply. 

"Apart from this, the high sums said to have been paid by you 
to Abraham Ruef solely for his legal skill estop you from ques- 
tioning the propriety of lesser sums said to have been paid to 
Francis J. Heney for his legal skill. 

"Just twenty-five years ago I sat in an upper room on Kearny 
street, with five other young men, and helped to organize a Munici- 
pal Reform League. Two or three others, still living, will recall 
the occasion. Abraham Ruef was one of them. 

"Fate separated all of us within a short time. Ruef went his 
own way, — the way we all know. It is the memory of those earlier 
days, in contrast with the recent course of events in my old home, 
that has interested me to give you these answers to the questions 
asked in the pamphlet you purport to have sent me. 

"JOHN H. WIGMORE." 



266 The Real Fight Begins 

houn 284 trial that neither Brown nor his company had 
contributed a dollar toward the prosecution fund. 
Nevertheless, persistent reports that the prosecution had 
had this support, unquestionably had its effect upon the 
losing depositors. Hiram W. Johnson had acted as 
Brown's attorney. Johnson had appeared as assistant 
to the District Attorney at a number of the graft trials. 
Johnson was condemned for taking the case of a crim- 
inal guilty of the offenses charged against Brown. 
Mr. Johnson's critics did not, however, condemn the 
attorneys who had taken the cases of the alleged bribe- 
givers. 

Another charge was that the prosecution was hurt- 
ing business ; that the material prosperity of California 
demanded that the proceedings be stopped; that capital 
would not seek investment in California until the dis- 
turbance caused by the prosecution had subsided. 

Every move of the prosecution was made subject 
of criticism. Announcement, for example, that im- 
munity had been given the Supervisors was received by 
the anti-prosecution press with a storm of protest, and 
used by the pro-defense claque most effectively. 

The treatment accorded Ruef was subject of con- 
stant objection and criticism. During the period of 
Ruef's apparent co-operation with the prosecution, when 
he was in custody of the elisor, the pro-defense press 
harped on the uselessness of the expense of keeping 
Ruef in the luxury of a private jail. 285 The Chronicle 

284 See Rudolph Spreckels' testimony in The People, etc., vs. 
Patrick Calhoun. 

285 As early as April 20, 1907, the Chronicle began its objection 
to Ruef's confinement. The Chronicle on that date said, in an edito- 
rial article: 

"It appears that it is costing the city about $70 a day to keep 



The Real Fight Begins 267 

even went so far as to say it would be well if Ruef 
forfeited his bail, provided the bail were set high enough. 
Ruef was, at the time, thought to be a willing witness 
for the prosecution. That the case of The People 
would be weakened were he to leave the State did not 
seem to appeal to the Chronicle. Later on, when it 
became evident that Ruef was not assisting the prose- 
cution, there were outcries against the alleged cruel 
treatment that had been imposed upon him during his 
confinement in the custody of the elisor. 

But this potent and far-reaching opposition did not 
cause a moment's hesitation on the part of the prose- 
cution. The work of bringing influential offenders be- 
fore trial juries went steadily on. As soon as the 



Ruef in jail. That expense should be shut off and shut off now. 
There is no reason why Ruef should be treated differently from 
any other criminal who jumped his bail. Incidentally the public is 
getting impatient to hear that the $50,000 bail already forfeited has 
been collected. If that were in the treasury we should be more 
willing to incur this large expense. The public will very sharply 
criticise authorities who incur such expense for the care of Ruef 
without promptly collecting the forfeited bail or beginning suit for 
it. Perhaps it has already been collected and the public has not 
heard of it. 

"The city has provided a jail and a jailer. Let him have Ruef. 
Of course, he will 'connubiate' with him, but what of it? The 
Sheriff will be under the direction of the Court and if, when other- 
wise ordered, he grants Ruef privileges not proper, he can himself 
be put in jail, we suppose. We trust the trial judges will not be 
discouraged in their efforts to enforce respect to their courts. They 
will And the people behind them who are already sitting in critical 
judgment on the legal refinements of the higher courts. 

"We suppose that a criminal who has once jumped his bail may 
be kept in jail when caught. But we see no use of it. By once 
running away he has warranted the Court in fixing new bail at such 
a rate that the public would gladly have it forfeited. We could 
afford to pay something handsome to clear Ruef entirely out of the 
counter and into Honduras, and if we could extort from him a few 
hundred thousand dollars for the privilege it would be the best trade 
we ever made. But we do not believe he would run away if the bail 
were made right. But if he is not to be bailed, let him go to jail, 
where the total cost of his keep will not exceed 25 or 30 cents a day 
or whatever it is. And if the Sheriff is not trustworthy — as, of 
course, he is not — let Elisor Biggy have a key to a separate lock on 
his dungeon. But there is no sense in spending $70 a day for the 
keep of only one of our municipal reprobates." 



268 The Real Fight Begins 

Schmitz extortion case had been disposed of, Louis 
Glass of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph 
Company, the first of the indicted capitalists to face a 
jury, was brought to trial. 



CHAPTER XIX. 
The Glass Trials and Conviction. 

On the day that Mayor Schmitz was sentenced to 
serve five years in the penitentiary for extortion, six 
jurors were secured to try Louis Glass, for bribery. 

Mr. Glass had been indicted with T. V. Halsey for 
alleged bribery transactions growing out of the opposi- 
tion of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Com- 
pany to competition in the San Francisco field. Mr. 
Halsey's business was to watch, and, so far as lay in his 
power, to block, such opposition telephone companies as 
might seek entrance into San Francisco. 

Mr. Glass was Mr. Halsey's superior. To Glass, 
Halsey reported, and from Glass, Halsey took his orders. 
Eleven Supervisors had confessed that Halsey had paid 
them large sums to oppose the granting of a franchise 
to the Home Telephone Company. Testimony given 
before the Grand Jury had brought the source of the 
bribe money close to Halsey's superior, Glass. 

Glass was indicted. The specific charge on which he 
was brought to trial was that he had given Supervisor 
Charles Boxton a bribe of $5000. 

As in all the graft cases, there had been in Mr. 
Glass's defense technical attack upon the validity of 
the Grand Jury, demurrers, and other delaying moves. 
But point by point the prosecution had beaten down 
opposition, and by the time the Schmitz extortion case 
had been disposed of, District Attorney Langdon and 



270 The Glass Trials and Conviction 

his associates were able to proceed with the trial of 
Glass. 286 

The District Attorney's office was represented by 
Heney. D. M. Delmas and T. C. Coogan appeared for 
Mr. Glass. 

There were none of the difficulties in securing the 
jury, as were experienced in the later graft trials. The 
Glass jury was sworn two days after the trial opened. 

Dr. Boxton took the stand and testified, with a minu- 
tia of detail, how the bribe had been paid to him. Dr. 
Boxton was the first of the Supervisors to testify be- 
fore trial jury and public, of his corruption. During 
the next year and a half San Francisco was to hear the 
story repeated time after time from the lips of sixteen 
men who had occupied the supervisorial office. But 
Boxton was the first. The spectacle of a man testifying 
that he had taken bribes and betrayed the city was 
new; it was astonishing, thrilling with sensation. 

Boxton's position was emphasized by his elevation, on 
the day of the beginning of his testimony, to the may- 
oralty office. He was spared by neither prosecution nor 
defense. He was kept on the witness stand for hours. 
The prosecution treated him with coldness, making no 
attempt to palliate or excuse his conduct. The defense 
harassed him with subtle ridicule. 

During the greater part of Boxton's examination, 



286 Glass's attorneys contended to the last moment that the 
trial judge had no jurisdiction to hear the case. After the Dis- 
trict Attorney's opening statement had been made, but before 
the taking of testimony had begun, Mr. Delmas for the defense, 
stated that in the opinion of the counsel for the defendant the 
court had no jurisdiction to try the case on the ground that the 
Grand Jury which returned the purported indictment was an 
illegal body, having no power to sit as a grand jury at the time 
it returned the indictment. 



The Glass Trials and Conviction 271 

the Board of Supervisors was in session. As Mayor of 
San Francisco, Boxton was supposed to preside over 
the Board. He was repeatedly dragged from presiding 
desk to witness stand, and hustled back from witness 
stand to presiding desk, the whole city watching every 
move. 

"You were elected Mayor of this city?" inquired 
Delmas after one of the witness' shameful admissions. - 

"Through no fault of mine," replied Boxton wearily. 

But in spite of the ridicule and the hammering, Box- 
ton testified positively to receiving money from Halsey 
to influence him against casting his supervisorial vote 
to give the Home Telephone Company a franchise. 
That Halsey paid the money was not seriously dis- 
puted. The question raised by the defense was, did 
the bribe money necessarily come through Halsey's 
superior, Glass? 

This question the prosecution attempted to meet. 
Halsey, it was shown, was employed under Glass in an 
inferior position and had neither authority nor power 
to use the corporation's funds without authorization. 

Mr. Glass's position in the company was an impor- 
tant one. He had long been vice-president and general 
manager. After the death of John I. Sabin, president 
of the company, in October, 1905, Glass became acting 
president, a position which he held until Henry T. Scott 
assumed the duties of that office late in February, or 
early in March, 1906. The evidence went to show that 
at the time of the alleged bribery transactions, Glass 
was serving as general manager and acting president. 
Officials of the company testified that during Sabin's 
administration checks had been signed by "John I. 



272 The Glass Trials and Conviction 

Sabin by Zimmer," or "E. J. Zimmer for the president," 
and countersigned by the treasurer. Zimmer was 
Sabin's confidential clerk. 

During Mr. Glass's administration, after Mr. Sabin's 
death, up to the time that Mr. Scott took hold, the 
checks were signed by Mr. Glass, or Mr. Zimmer for 
Mr. Glass, bearing as well the treasurer's signature. 

Zimmer had testified before the Grand Jury that at 
the direction of Mr. Glass, he had drawn large sums 
in currency from the banks, and given the money to 
Halsey. Halsey 287 gave no vouchers for this money 
which he received from Zimmer. The amounts were 
accounted for at the company's office by tags in the 
cash drawer. 

The testimony which Zimmer had given before the 
Grand Jury connected Glass directly with the large 
amounts which Halsey, without giving vouchers, had 
received from the telephone company's treasury at the 
time of the bribery transactions. The prosecution de- 
pended upon Zimmer's testimony to solidify their case. 
But when Zimmer was called to the stand, he refused 
to testify. 

Zimmer based his refusal upon the ground that in 
his opinion the Grand Jury had indicted a number of 
gentlemen upon evidence which Mr. Zimmer regarded 
as insufficient, and that he would not, to protect his 
own interests, testify. 288 

287 See Chapter XIV and footnotes 189 and 190, page 171. 

288 Mr. Zimmer's statement to the court was as follows: "As 
previously stated, the Grand Jury has heretofore charged and 
indicted a number of gentlemen on evidence which I have read, 
and which seems to be insufficient, for which reason I have taken 
this stand to protect my own interests; the stand I refer to is not 
to testify in the case which I had intended and not knowing my 



The Glass Trials and Conviction 273 

The court instructed Mr. Zimmer that his position 
was untenable. The witness continued obdurate. The 
court sentenced him to serve five days in the county 
jail for contempt. 

After his five-days' term had expired, Zimmer was 
again called to the stand, and again did he refuse to 
testify; again was he sentenced to serve in the county 
jail, this time for one day. Upon the expiration of 
this second sentence, Zimmer was for the third time 
called to the stand, for the third time refused to testify. 
For the third time was he adjudged guilty of contempt. 
His third sentence was to serve five days in the county 
jail and pay a fine of $500. Before he had served his 
time, the Glass trial had been concluded. Zimmer, 
therefore, escaped testifying against his associate, Glass. 
But for his refusal, he served eleven days in the county 
jail and paid a fine of $500. The maximum penalty for 
the crime of bribery alleged against Glass was fourteen 
years penal servitude. Mr. Zimmer thus served fewer 
days than Mr. Glass might have been sentenced to 
serve years had he been convicted. The testimony 
which Zimmer 289 gave before the Grand Jury, was not 
presented to the trial jury. 

Nevertheless, the prosecution considered that it had 
made out a strong case, but Mr. Heney and his asso- 
cates had reckoned without D. M. Delmas, Glass's 
chief counsel. The defense introduced no evidence, but 

rights in the matter. I was sworn, though my intention was not 
to be sworn." Zimmer positively refused to place his declination 
on the ground that his testimony might tend to subject him to 
prosecution. 

289 Zimmer was later tried before a Justice of Peace for con- 
tempt, found guilty and sentenced to three months in the county 
jail. He appealed to the higher courts. 



274 The Glass Trials and Conviction 

Delmas, in a masterful argument, raised the question 
of reasonable doubt. He insisted that Glass had not 
necessarily given the money to Halsey. He argued 
that several others of the officials of the company could 
have authorized the transaction. By an elaborate chain 
of reasoning, for example, Delmas insisted that if the 
money had been given Halsey at all, President Henry 
T. Scott 290 could have provided for it. 

290 Scott had been elected President before the alleged bribery 
transactions, but had left soon after for the East. The Prosecu- 
tion held that Scott did not assume his duties as president until 
after his return from the East, when the alleged briberies had been 
completed. Delmas concluded his argument on Scott's possible 
responsibility as follows: 

"And then you are called again further on in this same process 
of elimination. 'We expect to prove to you that Halsey had no 
power to expend moneys without a voucher, and that no person 
at that time in the Telephone Company had any power to expend 
money without the approval of the executive Board of Directors, 
except Glass, and Scott, who was away.' Scott had gone, we were 
told, on the 18th or 19th. These transactions took place on the 
22d, 23d and 24th. Scott could not have authorized them from the 
simple fact that Scott was then in the East, and he was not here 
in San Francisco to direct or authorize the management of the 
affairs of this corporation. A true elimination, gentlemen, if the 
facts were true, but the facts are not true. Mr. Scott did not 
leave for the East — bear this in mind — Mr. Scott did not leave for 
the East until all these transactions were closed; he did not leave 
until the 27th of February when the last of these checks had been 
paid. Who drew it? Scott himself. I challenge contradiction. 
The Assistant District Attorney told you on the first day that he 
addressed you that Scott left on the 18th or 19th. Did he know 
that Scott did not leave until the 27th? Did he? If he did, then 
there are no words that would apply to the deception that was 
sought to be practiced upon you, and I do not charge any such 
deception. Had Mr. Scott informed the District Attorney that he 
left on the 18th or 19th? I do not know. There is no evidence 
before you that he had. How, then, did he get the idea which he 
made to you under the oath of his office as District Attorney that 
Scott left on the 18th or 19th, when in point of fact Scott did not 
leave until the 27th? He came back from Portland on Monday or 
Tuesday of the preceding week. He was here during the whole of 
these transactions; he remained until the last check had been paid. 
He remained until the ordinance had been passed on the 26th of 
February, and left the defeated camp on the next day. How, then, 
upon that evidence, is Scott eliminated from this transaction? 
And I do not want you to understand that I am charging Mr. Scott 
with crime. That is no part of my business. It is no part of my 
office. I am assuming, upon the theory of this prosecution, that 
a crime was committed, and I say you, yourselves, Mr. District 
Attorney and your attendants, have undertaken by the process of 
elimination which you have selected, to show us that Mr. Scott 
could not hove committed this crime. It is sufficient for us to 
show you that he could without charging that he did." 



The Glass Trials and Conviction 275 

The jury, after being out forty-seven hours, failed 
to agree. At the final ballot it stood seven for con- 
viction and five for acquittal. That Delmas's argu- 
ment had strong influence upon those who voted for 
acquittal was indicated by their published interviews. 
If these statements are to be credited, Glass escaped 
conviction because a number of the jurors held to the 
opinion that some telephone company official other 
than Glass could have authorized the passing of the 
bribe money. 291 

As soon as the prosecution could bring Glass to sec- 
ond trial, impaneling of the jury began. 292 Glass, at 
this second trial, was tried for the alleged bribery of 



291 The following are taken from interviews with the several 
jurors which appeared in the Examiner of July 29, 1907: 

Juror Jacob Wertheimer — "I voted as I did (for acquittal) be- 
cause there was a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether or 
not Glass had authorized the giving of the money. There were too 
many others that might have been the ones." 

Juror Charles P. Fonda — "I voted not guilty. It was simply a 
question of whether Glass paid over this money as charged. Five 
of us did not believe that the Prosecution produced sufficiently 
convincing evidence to find the defendant guilty." 

Juror Michael C. Samuels — "The evidence did not link Glass up. 
So far as the bribery went, it might have been done by another 
official of the company than Glass." 

Juror Hugo Schnessel — "There was always something lacking in 
the evidence to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt of the 
defendant's guilt. It seemed to me that possibly some one else 
other than Glass might have paid over the money." 

292 Of the delaying tactics in the Glass case, The San Francisco 
Call in its issue of August 14, 1907, said: 

"Anything to delay trial and judgment is the policy of the 
accused bribe givers. Every day's proceedings in the retrial of 
Glass provides ample proof to convince the most skeptical citizen 
that the last thing desired by the men charged with debauching 
the boodle Board of Supervisors is prompt determination of the 
issues on their merits, and every pettifogging move for delay, every 
cunning attempt to betray the court into technical error is confes- 
sion of a case too weak to be given to a fair jury on a plain show- 
ing of the facts. The attitude of the lawyers for Glass is sufficient 
to indicate that he needs lawyers of their peculiar expertness — 
'distinguished attorneys,' Heney calls them — 'distinguished for their 
ability to defeat justice.' 

"Judge Lawlor's unhesitating denial of a motion to permit the 



276 The Glass Trials and Conviction 

Supervisor Lonergan. The trial was in many particu- 
lars a repetition of the first. Again, there was no seri- 
out attempt to dispute that Halsey had paid Lonergan 
the bribe money. Zimmer again refused to testify 
against his superior, and was again committed for con- 
tempt. But the prosecution was careful at the second 
trial to show beyond the possibility of the question of 
a doubt that neither President Henry T. Scott, nor any 
other official of the Pacific States Telephone Company, 
other than Glass, could have authorized the payment of 
the bribe money. 

By the minute books of the corporation, the prosecu- 
tion showed that checks drawn by the corporation on 
San Francisco banks were to be signed "by the assist- 
ant treasurer or his deputy, and by the president, or 
his private secretary, E. J. Zimmer, for him, or by the 
general manager." As for Mr. Scott, the prosecution 



lawyers for Glass to shift their ground in the midst of the impanel- 
ing of the jury and hark back to an attack on the validity of the 
indictments, and his sharp reprimand to Attorney Coogan for his 
method of misleading talesmen by adroitly framed questions, ought 
to expedite this trial. Lawlor has a reputation for dealing sternly 
with legal tricksters and for compelling counsel in the cases that he 
hears to get down to business and keep at it. At the same time 
his record on the bench is that of a just judge and always im- 
partial. It is because he is impartial and stern that crooked law- 
yers, with crooked clients, deem it 'hard luck' when their cases 
are assigned to Lawlor. 

"Now Judge Lawlor has a rare opportunity to prove anew his 
worth as a jurist. He will please a patient and long suffering 
public and will satisfy the ends of the justice which he administers 
when he makes the lawyers quit trifling and forces them to let 
the trial go on. We may expect to see the trial made as tedious 
and as costly in time and money as high priced counselors can 
arrange. It is all part of the game — tire out the public, the jury 
and the prosecution; delay is the safest course for the man accused 
against whom the people's case is strong. But we may also expect 
to see Judge Lawlor trimming the matter of technicalities and 
pressing it to a conclusion. It was because the people had come to 
expect such things from Judge Lawlor that they re-elected him, 
when all the machines of municipal corruption were grinding 
against him." 



The Glass Trials and Conviction 277 

showed by the testimony of Assistant Treasurer Ea- 
ton 293 of the telephone company that the corporation 
did not notify the banks to honor President Scott's sig- 
nature until February 27, which was after the alleged 
bribery of Supervisor Lonergan had been consum- 
mated. 

The jury, after being out less than a half hour, 
brought in a verdict of guilty. 

Pending his appeal to the Appellate Court, Glass 
was confined in the county jail. 

Of the Pacific States Telephone bribing charges, 
those against T. V. Halsey remained to be disposed of. 

Even while the second Glass trial was under way, 
Halsey's trial for the bribery of Supervisor Lonergan 
was begun. There had been the same delaying tactics 
to ward off appearance before a jury which had char- 
acterized the other graft cases. The impaneling of the 
trial jury was, however, finally undertaken. But the 
proceedings were suddenly brought to a close. Halsey, 
after eight jurors had been secured to try him, was 
stricken with appendicitis. 

« On this showing, his trial was postponed. Later 
on, Mr. Halsey was threatened with tuberculosis, which 

293 Eaton testified at the second Glass trial as follows: "Mr. 
Scott did not sign any checks between February 8, 1906, and the 
latter part of March, 1906, for the company; not to my knowledge. 
Notices were sent out by me to the different banks in regard to the 
signatures that could be accepted upon checks after Mr. Scott was 
elected president. They were sent on the 27th of February, 1906, to 
all the San Francisco banks that we had an account with." 

Eaton testified further that the day the banks were notified, 
Mr. Scott went East. Mr. Scott could, Eaton said, previous to that 
date, have signed checks, but up to that time they would not have 
been honored at the banks. Halsey, in the Mills Building, gave the 
Supervisors, of whom Lonergan was one, their bribe money not 
later than February 26. Supervisor Lonergan testified that to the 
best of his recollection he had been paid by Halsey some time 
between February 14 and February 20. 



278 The Glass Trials and Conviction 

further delayed proceedings against him. Until after 
the defeat of the Graft Prosecution in 1909, Mr. Hal- 
sey's health did not permit of his being tried. His 
trials under the new administration of the District At- 
torney's office, resulted in acquittals. 

Mr. Halsey, in August, 1913, still survives both the 
appendicitis attack and the threatened tuberculosis. 



CHAPTER XX. 

The Ford Trials and Acquittals. 

The conviction of Glass, following immediately upon 
the overthrow of the Schmitz-Ruef municipal adminis- 
tration, and coupled with the pitiful position in which, 
all recognized, Halsey would find himself before a jury, 
stirred the graft defense to astonishing activity. Al- 
though it developed later that the defendants had had 
their agents at work even before the bringing of indict- 
ments, 294 little was suspected of the extent of their 
labors until after the Glass trials. During the trials 
of General Tirey L. Ford, who followed Glass before 
trial jurors, however, the work of the defendants' 
agents and their methods became notorious. From the 
opening of the Ford trials, the representatives of the 
various graft defendants who congregated in the court- 
room ranged in social and professional standing from 
the highest priced lawyers of the character of Alexan- 
der King, President Calhoun's law partner, down 

294 John Helms, a detective, testified at the trial of Patrick Cal- 
houn that he had been employed by the United Railroads as early 
as May 3, 1907; that bis duties consisted of "mostly shadow work, 
watching out for things being done by the prosecution"; that 
Patrick Calhoun had himself authorized him (Helms) to employ 
men to follow Burns on motorcycles. Later on automobiles were 
substituted for the motorcycles. 

If Helms's employment began on May 3, as he testified, the 
United Railroads was preparing for its defense at least three weeks 
before indictments were brought against its officials. The extent 
of that corporation's defense, or the details of it, are not known to 
those outside the corporation. At the Calhoun trial the Prosecu- 
tion accounted for every dollar spent in the operations against the 
Schmitz-Ruef regime. The attorneys representing the United Rail- 
roads were invited to make as frank statement of the expendi- 
tures made by the defense, but they declined. 



280 The Ford Trials and Acquittals 

through layers of the typical, criminal lawyer of the 
Earl Rogers-Porter Ashe 295 grade, to characters of 
the type of Harry Lorenstzen, 296 notoriously known 
throughout Central California as the "Banjo-Eyed Kid," 
and Dave Nagle, the gun-fighter, who numbered among 
his accomplishments the slaying of Judge Terry. Nor 
were the defending corporations alone represented. 
The Southern Pacific, although none of its officials 
were under indictment, had men at work in the inter- 
est of the defense. 297 

With such motley array of attorneys, detectives, gun- 
fighters and agents, District Attorney Langdon and his 
associates contended until, what was practically the end- 
ing of the graft prosecution, the defeat of Heney for 
District Attorney at the municipal election of 1909. 

Ford had been indicted for his alleged part in the 

295 Ashe participated in the first Ford trials. At the time of the 
later trials he was involved in the scandal of the alleged kidnaping 
of Fremont Older. 

296 In referring to the men and women employed by the graft 
defense, The Call, in an editorial article, in its issue of September 
26, said: 

"The retinue of the trolley magnates, as exhibited in the Ford 
case, makes a remarkable picture. Behind the expert lawyers of 
last resort troops a motley train of gun fighters, professional plug- 
uglies, decoys, disreputable 'detectives,' thugs, women of the half 
world and the wolfish pack of gutter journalism. It must be, indeed, 
a hard case that needs such bolstering. 

"How will Mr. Calhoun square with his protestations of high- 
mindedness the presence and the efforts in his behalf of such 
creatures of the slums and stews as 'Bogie' O'Donnell and 'The 
Banjo Eyed Kid'? Are these and the others of their kidney labor- 
ing in the same behalf as friends and sympathizers of Mr. Calhoun 
or merely as his hired men?" 

297 At the Ford trial, Supervisor Lonergan had testified that he 
had been followed during a recess of the court. The following tes- 
timony followed: 

"Q. Was that Mr. Melrose, a detective of the Southern Pacific, 
who is sitting there? A. I don't know Mr. Melrose. 

"Q. Is he the gentleman sitting immediately back of Mr. Ford? 
A. That is the gentleman; that is him. 

"Q. He was following you around during the noon hour? A. 
Yes, sir. 

"Q. Don't you know he is a detective of the Southern Pacific? 
A. I don't know anything about the gentleman." 



The Ford Trials and Acquittals 281 

bribery of the Supervisors by the United Railroads to 
secure its over-head trolley permit. At his first trial, 
Ford answered to the charge of bribing former Super- 
visor Lonergan. Lonergan had not been long on the 
stand before the defense demonstrated the astonishing 
effectiveness of the work of its agents. 

Earl Rogers, for the defendant, on cross-examina- 
tion, presented a paper signed by Lonergan within the 
month, in which Lonergan set forth that when he voted 
for the trolley permit he had not been promised, nor 
did he understand, there would be any monetary con- 
sideration allowed him — nor any other member of the 
board — for voting in favor of the measure. 

Lonergan had testified on direct examination that 
some time prior to the granting of the permit, Super- 
visor Wilson had brought word to him there would be 
$8000 for him in the passing of the trolley ordinance. 
Later Wilson had told him that the amount would be 
$4000 only. This amount, Lonergan testified, Galla- 
gher had paid him. Lonergan's statement, signed a 
few days before the opening of the trial, to the effect 
that when he voted to grant the United Railroads its 
trolley permit no monetary consideration had been 
promised him, came as a surprise to the prosecution. 

The story of the manner in which the paper came to 
be in Rogers's possession, however, was quite as sensa- 
tional as the statement itself. Lonergan, the driver of 
a bakery wagon, confronted by the keenest practition- 
ers at the California bar, harassed and confused, stam- 
mered out explanation of the manner in which he had 
been induced to sign the paper in Rogers's hands. 



82 The Ford Trials and Acauittals 



202 



Long before he had signed it, one Dorland had se- 
cured introduction to him. Dorland had represented 
himself to be a magazine writer, who held that the 
ousted Supervisors had been misused. Dorland stated 
that his purpose was to set the Supervisors right in 
the East. He represented that he was to prepare an 
article on the San Francisco graft situation from an 
independent, unbiased standpoint. Dorland made him- 
self very agreeable to Lonergan. He took the unhappy 
fellow to lunch. He gave him and members of his 
family automobile trips and expensive dinners. Loner- 
gan finally signed the statement which the agreeable 
"magazine writer" was to use in his behalf, and with 
which the graft defense 298 confronted him on the wit- 
ness stand. 

The statement which Lonergan had signed was a 
rambling account of conditions in San Francisco, the 
one pertinent paragraph touching upon the United 
Railroads graft being buried in a multitude of words. 

"And you intended to say to all the readers of the 
magazine what you set forth over your signature 
there?" demanded General Ford's attorney. 

"Yes," replied Lonergan, weakly, "but when I made 
that statement I was not under oath." 

298 The Call, in its issue of September 26, 1907, stated in explan- 
ation of how the graft defense had come by the statement Lonergan 
had made to Dorland that: "After court adjourned (September 25) 
Attorney Rogers offered an explanation for Walter Dorland, the man 
who was charged by the prosecution with having attempted to kid- 
nap Lonergan. Rogers's story differed from that told by Dorland. 
Rogers stated that Dorland was not a detective, but was in charge 
of a hospital in Chicago. He came to San Francisco, where he met 
Luther Brown, an associate of Rogers. Brown and Dorland were 
old friends and the former induced Dorland to get statements from 
the Supervisors for him. Dorland did this. Rogers says he has 
statements from all the Supervisors with the exception of Galla- 
gher." 



The Ford Trials and Acquittals 283 

Then Lonergan was confronted with the affidavit 
which he had signed at the opening of the Graft Pros- 
ecution when Langdon was fighting against Ruef, 
Acting Mayor Gallagher and the Schmitz-Ruef Super- 
visors to keep himself in the office of District Attorney 
and Ruef out. In that affidavit Lonergan set forth 
that he had "never committed a felony of any kind 
or character/' and had "never been a party thereto." 299 

"I didn't read that paper at the time I signed it," 
faltered the miserable witness. "I did not consider I 
was committing a crime when I signed that document." 

"If it be a crime to have me sign that," he continued 
in answer to General Ford's attorney's merciless ham- 
mering, "then I must have (committed a felony)." 

Then on re-direct examination Lonergan testified as 
to how he had come to sign the affidavit. George B. 
Keane, clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Ruef s right- 
hand man, secretary of the Sunday-night caucuses, had, 
Lonergan testified, said to him, "Tom, there is a docu- 
ment across the street there for you to go over and 
sign. All the boys are signing it." Lonergan testified 
that he had gone over and signed it. "I am almost 
sure," Lonergan continued, "that some of them said to 



299 Heney states in an affidavit filed in the case of The People 
vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823, that he had been informed 
that the reason given by Ruef for securing the signatures of 
the Supervisors to this affidavit was to find out which, if any 
of them, had confessed, upon the theory that any one of them 
who had confessed would refuse to sign an affidavit, and upon 
the further theory that if such a confessing member did sign the 
affidavit, he would thus be making a contradictory statement 
under oath, which could thus be further used against him by 
Ruef or Gallagher, upon the trial of either of them. 

But whatever Ruef's far-seeing motive, this affidavit which 
he, through Keane, induced the Supervisors to sign, was used 
by the attorneys for the defense at the graft trials to show con- 
tradictory statements of the confessing Supervisors. 



284 The Ford Trials and Acquittals 

me that it was a matter of form, merely eulogizing 
the board." 

"When proper inducements or circumstances occur," 
sneered General Ford's attorney, "you will testify false- 
ly concerning your offenses." 

"I will not testify falsely on this stand," replied the 
unhappy witness, "to whatever has happened during 
my term as Supervisor." 

But complicated as the position in which the prose- 
cution found its principal witness, it might have been 
more complicated had all the plans of the agents for 
the defense been carried out. 

On the night before Lonergan was to take the stand 
against Ford, Dorland, the alleged magazine writer, 
called him up by telephone and invited him "to make 
a night of it." Dorland stated two women would 
accompany them. Before accepting the invitation, Lon- 
ergan notified Detective Burns. Burns instructed him 
not to go on the trip, but to meet Dorland and to take 
Mrs. Lonergan with him. Lonergan, with his wife, 
accordingly met Dorland and the two women at the 
appointed place. Dorland expressed his chagrin when 
he found Lonergan not alone. 

"He said," Lonergan testified, "he was sorry I was 
not alone ; two nice young ladies were there." 

Lonergan's testimony of Dorland's dismay when the 
detective found that Mrs. Lonergan accompanied her 
husband, was received with amusement. The one-time 
Supervisor went on no automobile ride that evening. 
Thus tamely ended what the prosecution insisted was 
a plot to kidnap, or at least compromise, Lonergan on 



The Ford Trials and Acquittals 285 

the eve of his appearance as a witness against General 
Ford. 300 

Out of this attempt to involve Lonergan, grew the 
scarcely less astonishing kidnaping of Fremont Older, 
managing editor of the San Francisco Bulletin. 

Among those alleged to have participated in the 
Lonergan affair was an employe of the graft defense by 
the name of Brown. The defense had at the time two 
employes of that name, "Luther" and "J. C," the lat- 
ter of whom is alleged to have been the one who co- 
operated with Dorland in his attempt upon Lonergan. 
The Bulletin, in its account of the affair, confounded 
Luther with J. C. Brown. Based on the Bulletin's 
allegations against Luther Brown, warrants were sworn 
out at Los Angeles, charging Managing Editor Older 
with criminal libel. The manner of serving these Los 
Angeles warrants was characteristic of the times. 

Late in the afternoon of September 27, Older, while 
at Heney's office, received a telephone message that he 
was wanted at a prominent hotel. As he approached 
the hotel in response to the message, he was stopped 
by a number of men who claimed to be peace officers 
from Los Angeles. These displayed the warrant, and 



300 The San Francisco Call, in its issue of September 25, 1907, 
in commenting on Lonergan's testimony, says: "While Lonergan's 
narrative tells a portion of the story, it is not ah. In another 
automobile were Detective Luther Brown and the 'Banjo-Eyed 
Kid' of the United Railroads. They followed close on the heels 
of the auto occupied by Detective Dorland. Both machines sped 
to a resort near the park, where a meeting place had been 
arranged and where Lonergan was to be turned over to the 
custody of the 'Banjo-Eyed Kid.' The rest was to be left to 
the Kid. If the plan had carried there would have been no 
Lonergan at the trial yesterday, the defense would have flashed 
the statement secured by Dorland and set up the cry that the 
entire prosecution of the United Railroads was a plot set on foot 
by Rudolph Spreckels." 



286 The Ford Trials and Acquittals 

hustled Older into an automobile. Older demanded 
that he be taken before a local court. His captors 
promised him he should be. But instead they headed 
the machine for Redwood City, a town some twenty 
miles south of San Francisco on the line of the South- 
ern Pacific. When Older protested a revolver was 
pressed against his side, and he was ordered to keep 
silent. 

At Redwood City, Older was put on board a Los 
Angeles train. On the train were R. Porter Ashe and 
Luther Brown. Older was not permitted to communi- 
cate with his friends nor with the passengers, but was 
confined in a stateroom which his captors had secured. 301 

In the meantime, the entire police force of San 
Francisco was scouring the city for the missing man. 
There had been rumors that those prominent in the 
prosecution, Older among them, were to be made away 
with. Older's unaccountable disappearance tended to 
confirm these rumors. His alarmed friends were pre- 
pared to act promptly when word finally reached them 
that Older was on the southbound train. 

The train was due to reach Santa Barbara early the 
following morning. Arrangements were accordingly 
made to rescue Older at that point. When the train 
arrived there, deputy sheriffs were awaiting its arrival. 
Older was taken into court under habeas corpus pro- 
ceedings. His release followed, 301 another sensation of 
the graft defense thereby coming to sorry ending. 302 

301 Several who participated in this affair were later indicted for 
kidnaping. There were no convictions. 

302 Burns in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. 
Patrick Calhoun et als., 832, refers to a plot hatched about the time 
of the Ford trials to kidnap Ruef. Burns charges that Ruef was to 



The Ford Trials and Acquittals 287 

There were other surprises for the representatives 
of the prosecution at the Ford trials well calculated to 
confuse them. Alex. Latham, chauffeur for Ruef, 
whose testimony connected Ruef and Ford, during the 
period of the alleged bribery transactions was, when 
his name was called as a witness, found to be missing. 
He was alleged to be in Colorado. 

George Starr, treasurer of the United Railroads, 
whose testimony was needed in the tracing of the ex- 
act amount of the bribe money paid Ruef in the over- 
head trolley deal, $200,000, that had been placed in 
Ford's hands under somewhat peculiar circumstances, 
went East about the date the trial opened. The United 
Railroads' cash book was sent East about the same 
time, and could not be produced at the trial. 303 

have been taken into a mountain county and held there until the 
United Railroads cases had been disposed of. He states his belief 
that Ruef was party to the plot. 

303 The disinclination of the United Railroads to produce its 
books continues to cause that corporation inconvenience and trovi- 
ble. In 1913, for example, the corporation applied to the California 
State Board of Railroad Commissioners for permission to issue 
promissory notes to the amount of $2,350,000. That the Commis- 
sion might determine the necessity .of such an issue, request was 
made for the corporation's books. This request was denied. The 
Commission withheld authorization of the note issue. In comment- 
ing - upon its refusal, the Commission said: 

"It should be understood that the conclusions hereinbefore set 
out have been reached on the partial information which has been 
submitted to the Commission, and that if an examination of the 
original books which the company has refused to supply should 
reveal a different condition, the responsibility for these conclusions, 
which we contend inevitably must be drawn from what evidence is 
before us, lies with the applicant because of its failure to submit 
its books for examination by the Commission. 

"It is an axiom that evidence suppressed is deemed to be ad- 
verse, and having in mind this axiom certainly the Commission is 
justified in concluding that the books which the applicant refuses 
to produce at least would not better its showing." 

Following the defeat of the graft prosecution in November, 1909, 
peculiar transactions are recorded against the United Railroads. 
For example, the Railroad Commission found, and has so reported, 
that "in the minutes (of the United Railroads) of May 25, 1910, it 
appears that four years' 'back salary' was voted to Patrick Cal- 
houn, president of the United Railroads of San Francisco, in the 



288 The Ford Trials and Acquittals 

Then again, witnesses who had testified freely before 
the Grand Jury became forgetful. Supervisor Wilson, 
who had conveyed word to Lonergan from Gallagher 
that there would be $4000 in the trolley deal for Lon- 
ergan, could, when brought to the witness stand, re- 
member nothing of the incident. Supervisor Coffey 
also proved equally forgetful. 304 

In the midst of these extraordinary happenings, Gen- 
eral Ford's trial went on, marked by repeated attacks 
by attorneys for the defense upon those who had been 
instrumental in bringing about the Graft Prosecution. 
Rudolph Spreckels in particular, was made object of 
vicious denunciation. It was recognized from the be- 
ginning that the defense was battling not for General 
Ford alone, but for President Calhoun, and the other 
officials of the United Railroads under indictment. 

The State's attorneys, target for constant abuse and 
ridicule at the hands of the defense, proceeded, how- 
ever, to present the case of The People. In spite of 
sensations, the disappearance of witnesses and the for- 
getfulness of witnesses, the prosecution brought out 
testimony to show that the Supervisors had received 
$85,000 for their votes granting the trolley permit. By 

sum of $75,000 a year, or a total of $300,000. No explanation is 
made of this item, but it at once suggests the necessity of a thor- 
ough investigation in order to determine the items claimed by ap- 
plicant as operating expenses of the United Railroads over a series 
of years." See Decision No. 439, Railroad Commission of Califor- 
nia, in the matter of the application of the United Railroads, etc., 
February 4, 1913. 

304 Both Wilson and Coffey were indicted for bribe-taking. Wil- 
son later on found his memory. At other graft trials he explained 
that his testimony at the first Ford trial had been given after he 
had undergone an operation that had involved the use of large 
quantities of cocaine. He insisted that he did not know to what he 
was testifying. Coffey was tried for bribe-taking and convicted. 
The Supreme Court, however, set aside the verdict on technicali- 
ties. 



The Ford Trials and Acquittals 289 

the testimony of officials of the United States Mint it 
was shown that Patrick Calhoun had, after the fire, but 
before the opening of the San Francisco banks, created 
a fund of $200,000 at the Mint. 

None of the directors of the United Railroads who 
could be dragged to the stand knew anything about 
this $200,000. Other amounts, which the United Rail- 
roads, during the days of stress following the fire, had 
received at the Mint from the East, could be accounted 
for by the books and vouchers, but not this $200,000. 305 
United Railroads employes who could be made to testi- 
fy could throw no light upon its final disposition. 

But the prosecution did show by the Mint officials 
that President Calhoun had ordered the $200,000 paid 
to General Ford and that it was paid to General Ford. 

The following dates, brought out by the testimony, 
showed the receipt and suggested the disposition of 
the money: 

May 21 — Overhead trolley franchise granted by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

305 It was shown at the Ford trial that about $175,000 in addition 
to the unaccounted-for $200,000 was received by the United Rail- 
roads through the United States mint. Every dollar of this $175,- 
000 except $3,000 loaned to Ruef by Mullally, was taken out by the 
treasurer of the company, and carried to the United Railroads' 
office and there put in its safe and used as needed, that it was 
taken in gold and was paid out to its employees in gold. It was 
further shown that not one dollar of currency was ever put in any 
of the safes at the United Railroads' office by any person during 
that period of time covered by Ford's withdrawal of money from 
the mint, and that no currency was deposited to the credit of the 
company in any of its bank accounts nor to the credit of Ford or 
Mullally or Abbott, and that no currency was turned over to the 
treasurer of the company during that time. Thus by a process of 
exclusion this $200,000 was left in the hands of Ford absolutely 
unaccounted for upon any theory consistent with an honest use of 
it. Add these facts to the further facts that Ruef was traced to 
Ford's office on two of the days on which Ford got the money, and 
that Ruef on each occasion, within a day or two, paid the same 
kind of money to Gallagher, that currency was not generally in 
circulation at all in San Francisco. 

10 



290 The Ford Trials and Acquittals 

May 22— $200,000 placed in the Mint to the credit 
of Patrick Calhoun. 

May 25— General Ford drew $50,000 from the Mint 
which he exchanged for currency of small denomina- 
tions. 

July 31— General Ford drew $50,000 from the Mint, 
which he exchanged for currency. 

August 1 — The Supervisors received from Gallagher 
their first payment for voting to grant the overhead 
trolley permit. Gallagher testified that he had received 
the money from Ruef. The payments were in cur- 
rency, the bills being of small denominations. 

August 23— General Ford drew $100,000 from the 
Mint, which he exchanged for currency, receiving bills 
of large denominations. 

August 24-30 — The Supervisors received their final 
payments from Gallagher for their votes on the trolley 
permit. These last payments were made in bills of 
large denominations. Gallagher testified that he had 
received the money from Ruef. 

The withdrawals from the Mint had been made by 
General Ford, on Mr. Calhoun's instructions to the 
Mint officials that the payments should be made to the 
General. 

The testimony of the Mint officials and employes was 
to the point and at times sensational. Nathan Selig, a 
clerk at the Mint, for example, assisted Eugene D. 
Hawkins as assistant cashier, 306 in making up a pack- 

306 The two men were at the time detailed to handle the money 
of the relief fund. The mint officials could not accommodate Ford 
with the currency he wanted. They gave him gold. The gold which 
Ford secured at the mint was trucked across the hall to relief head- 
quarters, where it was exchanged for the currency. Selig and 
Hawkins counted out the bills. 



The Ford Trials and Acquittals 291 

age of $50,000 in bills which were turned over to Ford. 
Selig fixed the time of the occurrence at "shortly after 
the Mayor signed the franchise bill for the overhead 
wire." 

"What impressed that upon your mind?" was asked 
him. "Because I made the remark to Mr. Hawkins, 
as he was going out," replied Selig, "that that was — I 
though it was, the Supervisors' 'bit'." 

Having traced this $200,000 from Calhoun to the 
Mint and from the Mint to Ford, the prosecution proved 
by Charles Hagerty, Ruef's office boy, that during the 
weeks after the fire General Ford and Mr. Mullally of 
the United Railroads, had had conference with Ruef at 
Ruef's office. Ruef was traced to Ford's office. Ford's 
stenographer testified, reluctantly, to Ruef's presence 
there. Ford was shown to have sent warning, through 
his assistant Abbott, to Ruef, at the opening of the 
graft investigation, that the Grand Jury was taking up 
the matter of the United Railroads trolley privilege, 
that the prosecution had not made any headway, that 
it was thought the next step would be to lay some trap 
for the Supervisors. 307 That Ruef and Ford had more 
or less intimate relations during this period was fully 
established. 308 The question raised was : Did the $85,- 
000 in currency which Ruef gave Gallagher to be paid 
to the Supervisors for their votes on the overhead 
trolley permit pass from Ford to Ruef? Did the money 
paid the Supervisors come out of the unaccounted-for 

307 See transcript of testimony, trial of The People vs. Tirey 
L. Ford, No. 817, taken September 25, 1907, page 270. 

308 Mr. Mullally, assistant to Mr. Calhoun, and also Mr. Cal- 
houn were known to have enjoyed friendly relations with Mr. Ruef 
during this period. 



292 The Ford Trials and Acquittals 

$200,000 which had disappeared into General Ford's 
possession ? 309 

A word from Abe Ruef would have lifted the case 
out of the plane of circumstantial to that of positive 
evidence. 

A word from General Ford would have shown the 
manner in which the money had been disposed. 

Those who took seriously Ruef's protestations at 
the time of his plea of guilty to extortion, that his life 
would thereafter be devoted to undoing the wrong he 
had wrought, looked to see the prosecution put Ruef 
on the stand. 

The many supporters of General Ford — he was one 
of the most likable and popular men in the State — 
who still held belief in his innocence, looked to see him 
take the stand to clear his name by accounting for the 
disposition of that $200,000 which he had received, at 
the order of President Calhoun, from the Mint officials. 

But neither Ruef nor Ford took the stand. 

Later developments in the graft cases showed why 
the prosecution did not call upon Ruef to testify. 

* But no satisfactory showing has been made why 
General Ford did not take the stand to tell, under oath, 
of the disposition of that $200,000 last seen in his pos- 
session. 



309 The facts brought out at General Ford's trial are interesting 
in connection with General Ford's interview in the San Francisco 
Examiner of October 28, 1906, soon after the Graft Prosecution 
opened. See Footnote 92. 

Ruef, in "The Road I Traveled," printed in the San Francisco 
Bulletin, states that he gave Schmitz $50,000 and kept $50,000 for 
himself out of the $200,000 which was given to him hy Tirey L. 
Ford from Patrick Calhoun to pay for the granting of the trolley 
permit. 



The Ford Trials and Acquittals 293 

Heney, in an affidavit 310 acknowledged March 10, 
1908, tells why Ruef was not called upon to testify. 

Some ten days before the taking of testimony in the 
first Ford trial began, according to this affidavit, Heney 
had Gallagher and Ruef at his office. The two men 
had told stories of the passage of the ordinance grant- 
ing the trolley permit, which conflicted slightly. Heney's 
purpose in confronting them, he tells us in the affidavit, 
was that he might determine in his own mind which 
was right. Heney had not seen Ruef, except as he had 
passed him in court or corridor, since he had proved 
that Ruef had made misrepresentations to him in the 
French Restaurant cases. 311 The conversation between 
Ruef and Gallagher did not tend to change Heney's 
opinion of the broken boss. Indeed, Heney became 
more firmly convinced than ever that Ruef was not 
acting in good faith, that he was not telling the whole 
truth. A few days after this meeting, Burns brought 
Heney word that Ruef would not testify at the Ford 
trial at all, unless the prosecution allowed him to with- 
draw his plea of guilty in the extortion case, and dis- 
missed all the indictments against him. Heney refused 
to be coerced. He sent word back to Ruef that the 
prosecution had had sufficient evidence to convict Ford 
before Ruef had told anything; that if Ruef were called 
to the witness-stand it would be without further talk 
with him; that none of the cases against him would be 
dismissed, and that if called to the stand he could tes- 
tify or not testify, as he saw fit. 

810 This affidavit deals with the Graft Prosecution from its be- 
ginning down to the spring of 1908. This document was filed in the 
case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823. 

311 See Chapter XVI, page 211, and footnote 119, page 111. 



294 The Ford Trials and Acquittals 

That night, according to Heney, Rabbis Nieto and 
Kaplan, with Ruef's attorney, Henry Ach, 312 appeared 
at Heney's office. Ach announced in substance, accord- 
ing to Heney's affidavit, that inasmuch as Heney and 
Langdon had promised to permit Ruef to withdraw his 
plea of guilty to the extortion charge, and then dismiss 
the case, as a condition upon which Ruef signed the 
immunity contract, 313 the time had arrived when, in 
justice to Ruef, this ought to be done. 314 

Heney let Ach finish. 

"We might as well understand each other," Heney 
then announced. "You know perfectly well that I did 
not at any time make any such promise to Ruef or to 
you, or to any one present, or to any one else on earth." 

Heney then recited the exact terms of his promise. 315 

312 This is the same Ach who dramatically left the Ruef de- 
fense at the time of Ruef's plea of guilty to extortion. See 
Chapter XV, page 204. 

313 For immunity contract see page xix of the Appendix. For 
the negotiations upon which Ach's claim was based see Chapter 
XV. 

314 Heney sets forth in his affidavit that Ach's claim did not 
surprise him. He says of Ach's statement: "I was not very much 
surprised by its substance as I had long before commenced to sus- 
pect that Ruef, Ach, Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Nieto would claim eventu- 
ally that such agreement existed in regard to case number 305 
(the extortion case) if it became necessary to do so in order to 
keep Ruef out of the penitentiary. In fact I would not have been 
greatly surprised by anything that Ach might have claimed, as I 
have learned to know him pretty well and am sometimes at a loss to 
decide whether he or Ruef is entitled to first place as an artistic 
and imaginative 'equivocator,' to use Ruef's language." 

315 See Chapter XV, pages 190-7. Heney states in his affidavit 
that both Nieto and Kaplan agreed that Heney's statement of the 
arrangement was correct. "Yes, you are right, Mr. Heney," the 
affidavit sets forth Nieto said. "I understand it that way, and 
consequently I never told Ruef anything about that. He never 
got that from me." The affidavit sets forth that Kaplan said in 
substance: "Yes, that is what you said, Mr. Heney, but I always 
understood that Mr. Ruef would be allowed to withdraw his plea of 
guilty in the French Restaurant cases and would not receive any 
punishment." 

Heney replied in substance: "You may have so understood, 
Doctor, but you had no right so to understand from anything which 
I said." 



The Ford Trials and Acquittals 295 

Both Kaplan and Nieto agreed with him that his state- 
ment was correct, but Kaplan insisted that he had un- 
derstood that Ruef was to be allowed to withdraw his 
plea, arguing that he had told the truth and that his 
evidence was very important. 

"Ruef lied to us," answered Heney emphatically, "in 
the French Restaurant case, and I proved it to him in 
this very room, and he simply laughed in my face. He 
also lied to us in all the other cases. He is not entitled 
to immunity in any case, and I not only will not permit 
him to withdraw his plea of guilty in case number 305, 
but on the contrary it is my present intention to ask the 
court in that case to give him no leniency whatever, 
bu^ftf sentence him for the maximum term which is 
prescribed by law." 

Heney suggested that Ruef's representatives take 
this word back to their principal. 

"Ruef," Heney concluded, "tried to job the prosecu- 
tion and he has only succeeded in jobbing himself into 
the penitentiary." 

Ten days later, when Heney made his opening state- 
ment before the first Ford jury, he carefully refrained 
from stating that the prosecution expected to prove 
any fact that necessarily depended in whole or 
in part upon Ruef's testimony. And with all San 
Francisco on tiptoe of expectancy, 316 Heney closed the 



316 Heney, in his closing argument, told the jury that Ruef 
had not been put on the stand because the prosecution did not trust 
him. Heney said: "Nobody except Mr. Ford and Mr. Ruef could 
tell about it (the passing of the $200,000). They did not complain 
about my asking why they did not put Mr. Ruef on the stand. 
They asked why we didn't put him on the stand and vouch for his 
veracity and enable them to put words in his mouth, and I will 
answer now, because we DID NOT TRUST HIM." 



296 The Ford Trials and Acquittals 

case of The People without putting Ruef on the stand. 317 
The defense offered no evidence. The case went to 

the jury on the evidence which the prosecution had 

presented. The jury failed to agree, eight standing for 

acquittal, and four for conviction. 

General Ford was immediately brought to trial for 

the second time. The case selected was for the bribery 

of Supervisor Jennings Phillips. 

Heney, in his opening statement, announced that he 

did not intend to put Ruef on the stand. The second 

case presented was, if anything, stronger than the first, 

317 Heney, in his affidavit, describes the disappointment of Ruef, 
Ach and Nieto when the case was closed without Ruef being called. 
Heney says: "I rested the case on behalf of the prosecution in the 
first Ford trial in this department of this Court on the 2nd day of 
October, 1907, and the attorneys for the defendant asked for time 
to consider what they would do about putting in evidence, and 
Court adjourned for the purpose of giving them such time. I had 
noticed Henry Ach and Ruef sitting together next to the aisle, 
which was directly in front of where I sat, and could see that up 
to the time I closed the case they were anxiously waiting for me 
to call Ruef as a witness. When Court adjourned they remained 
sitting and as I passed them Ach stopped me and said in sub- 
stance, 'Why didn't you put Ruef on the stand as a witness? Are 
you not going to dismiss these cases against him?' I replied in 
substance, 'There are a lot more cases to be tried. There will be 
plenty of opportunities to dismiss these cases if I want to do it.' 
Ruef said, with one of his most winning smiles, in substance, 'I 
guess he is going to put me on in rebuttal just as he did in the 
Schmitz case.' I replied in substance, 'Oh, I don't know about that, 
Ruef. I don't like to try all my cases the same way.' I started to 
leave and Ach stopped me as I had taken only a couple of steps, 
and said in substance, 'There isn't any change in the situation, is 
there in regard to Ruef?' I smilingly and meaningly replied, in 
substance, 'Not a particle, Henry, since our last talk,' meaning 
thereby the talk which Ach and myself had on or about the 19th 
or 20th day of September, 1907, at night in my office in the presence 
of Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan, William J. Burns and Charles W. Cobb, 
as hereinbefore set forth. As I made this statement I walked on 
out of the courtroom and someone stopped me somewhere between 
there and the entrance door of the building and Dr. Nieto came up 
to me, all smiles, and said in substance. 'You didn't put Ruef on 
the stand, did you?' I replied, 'No, I did not, Doctor.' Dr. Nieto 
then said in substance, 'There isn't any change in the situation, is 
there?' And I replied with a smile in substance, 'None whatever 
since our last talk, Doctor,' meaning the talk at my office just 
hereinbefore referred to, at which Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan and Ach 
were present. The manner of Ach and the manner of Dr. Nieto 
when I made this reply to each of them indicated plainly that 
each understood exactly what I meant." 



The Ford Trials and Acquittals 297 

but the jury brought in a verdict of "not guilty." Gen- 
eral Ford was tried on a third of the indictments 
against him, and again was the verdict of the jury 
"not guilty." 

Long after, the prosecution discovered that agents 
for the United Railroads had systematically corrupted 
members of its detective force. On the evidence in the 
hands of the prosecution, a search warrant was secured, 
and the offices of the United Railroads raided in a 
search for stolen documents. Copies of over 2400 doc- 
uments belonging to the prosecution were found. It 
developed that men in the employ of the prosecution 
were receiving regular monthly salaries from agents of 
the United Railroads to turn these reports over to 
agents of the defense for copying. The defense was 
in this way kept informed of all that had been reported 
to the prosecution regarding jurors, etc., by Burns's 
own agents. 318 



318 Calhoun protested vigorously against the raiding of his offices. 
Concerning the raid and Mr. Calhoun's protests, the interior press 
expressed general approval of the first and condemnation of the 
latter. 

"It is not a question," said the Oroville Register, "alone of graft 
in San Francisco now. It is rather a question as to whether in 
America, where 'all men are free and equal,' there is a law for 
the rich and another law for the poor, and whether a little money 
can put our whole penal system at naught and make monkeys of 
judicial officers. Unluckily in the Calhoun case we can not in 
America resort to the czar-like methods which should be resorted 
to, but must fight it out by the long and slow process of law. 
Luckily for the honor of America Mr. Heney and his associates 
are gifted with the courage, ability and tenacity to fight it out 
on this line even if it takes this summer and the whole of the next 
so to do." 

"The 'private sanctity' of Calhoun's offices," said the Santa 
Barbara Independent, "was violated, his defenders say, when the 
police entered to search for stolen goods. The fact that the goods 
were concealed in the offices — that the police unearthed there a 
'fence' for the reception of stolen goods — doesn't seem to have de- 
stroyed the sanctity of the place. 

"Recently the police in Los Angeles raided a cigar store, where 
they found concealed some of the money that three months ago had 
been stolen from the Monrovia bank. The cigar dealer's lawyers 



298 The Ford Trials and Acquittals 

At the time of the third Ford trial, for example, 
Heney was engaged with Ruef's trial in the Parkside 
case. The Ford trial was conducted for the State by 
John O'Gara. One of Burns's men, Piatt by name, was 
appointed to assist O'Gara by advising him of the char- 
acter of the men drawn for jury service. O'Gara 
repeatedly discovered Piatt's advice and suggestions to 
be unreliable. Long after it was discovered that Piatt 
was at the time in the employ of agents for the United 
Railroads. The reason for the character of his advice 
and suggestions was then apparent. 

At none of the Ford trials did the defense attempt 
to meet the evidence which the prosecution presented. 
At the third trial, the prosecution called President Cal- 
houn and A±>e Ruef 319 to the stand. But both declined 
to answer. The disposition of the $50,000 in currency 
in small bills, and of the $150,000 in currency in large 
bills, which passed into General Ford's hands, at the 
time that currency of this exact amount and descrip- 
tion passed into the hands of Abe Ruef, $85,000 of 
which Ruef distributed among the Supervisors for vot- 
ing for the United Railroads trolley permit, continues 
as great a mystery as it was on the day that the first 
Ford trial opened. Ruef at the time of his plea of 

should go into court and protest against violation of the 'private 
sanctity' of the thief's hiding place. 

"It is beyond understanding how men can view a similar cir- 
cumstance in different lights. To an unprejudiced mind a thief is a 
thief, whether he has stolen an old pair of shoes or robbed the pub- 
lic through a municipal or other government. And the honest man 
rejoices in his capture, the recovery of the stolen goods and appre- 
hension and punishment of persons who receive and conceal the 
fruits of theft." 

319 Calhoun and Ruef were placed on the stand April 29, 1908. 
Their refusal to answer will be found in the transcript of testi- 
mony taken that day. Complete records of all the graft cases 
were in 1912, when this review was written, in the possession of 
A. A. Moore, prominently connected with the graft defense. 



The Ford Trials and Acquittals 299 

guilty to the extortion charge, and five years later in 
the story of his career published in the San Francisco 
Bulletin, admitted that the $200,000 that on Calhoun's 
order was turned over to Ford was soon after paid to 
him (Ruef) because of the granting of the trolley per- 
mit. The $85,000 that Gallagher divided among the 
Supervisors on account of their granting this permit, 
Ruef has stated in his several confessions, came out of 
this Calhoun-to-Ford, Ford-to-Ruef $200,000. 

And in California there are many who hold that in 
this instance, at least, Ruef is telling the truth. 



CHAPTER XXI. 

The San Francisco Election of 1907. 

Scarcely had the prosecution overcome the delaying 
tactics of the defense, and forced graft cases to trial, 
than District Attorney Langdon had to defend title to 
his office at the polls. 

Langdon had taken office in January, 1906. His 
term was to expire in January, 1908. The municipal 
election, at which Mr. Langdon's successor was to be 
elected, was to be held in November. 

At that time was to be elected besides the District 
Attorney, the Mayor, Supervisors and practically all 
the other municipal officials. 

The old convention system of naming candidates for 
office still prevailed in San Francisco. However, Cali- 
fornia had even then entered upon the struggle of 
throwing off the yoke of machine domination through 
the convention system of naming candidates. The dele- 
gates to the several conventions had, under primary 
law provisions, to be elected at the polls. 

San Francisco was divided upon one issue — that of 
the Graft Prosecution. The opposition which years of 
adverse publicity was to develop, did not then confront 
those who were standing for vigorous prosecution of 
the corrupters of the municipality. But under the ham- 
mering of an adverse press, and the claquer's systematic 
belittling, the graft defense had made gains sufficient 
to give it at least a fighting chance at the polls. 



The San Francisco Election of 1907 301 

On the side of the defense, too, was the solid sup- 
port of the powerful Southern Pacific Company, and of 
the various public service corporations, as well as the 
purchasable press. On the side of the prosecution 
stood the people of San Francisco, not yet worn out, 
nor misled, nor yet alienated from the policy of vigor- 
ous prosecution of the corrupters of the municipality. 
The people recognized that effective continuance of the 
prosecution required that Mr. Langdon be re-elected. 

That the action of the prosecution in making Taylor 
Mayor, might be endorsed at the polls — thus receiving 
the stamp of public approval — Mr. Taylor's election 
became quite as important as that of Mr. Langdon. 
The same was true of those of the Taylor-appointed 
Supervisors who became candidates for election. But 
the contest waged about the election of Taylor and 
Langdon. 

Such was the issue which confronted San Francisco 
at the 1907 election. 

There was but one issue. There were, however, 
three prominent political parties, Union Labor, Repub- 
lican and Democratic. None of the three could be 
called the prosecution party, nor for that matter, the 
defense party; nor had any faction of any of the par- 
ties the temerity to declare against the prosecution of 
those trapped in corruption, however vigorously op- 
posed to the prosecution this or that faction might be. 
But each of the three parties did divide on the ques- 
tion of the election of Langdon and Taylor. 

Broadly speaking, the supporters of the prosecution 
in all parties demanded that Taylor and Langdon be 
nominated. The opponents of the prosecution, while 



302 The San Francisco Election of 1907 

declaring loudly for the prosecution of all offenders 
against the law, labored for their defeat. On this 
issue, not always clearly defined, the intraparty factions 
met at the primary polls. The prosecution, therefore, 
had three independent political fights on its hands. 

Langdon had been elected by the Union Labor 
party. Taylor was a Democrat. But in the confusion 
of the times the principal primary fight was within the 
Republican party. 

The Republican opposition to those roughly described 
as "pro-prosecution," found expression in the remnants 
of the old-time machine — generally called Herrin — ele- 
ment. At its head were many of the experienced ma- 
chine leaders. The Republican pro-prosecution forces 
were at first without definite leadership. But in this 
emergency most effective leadership developed. 

Daniel A. Ryan, a young "Irish-American," came to 
the fore as captain of the reform forces within the 
Republican party. 

Ryan is of the highest type of his race, as developed 
under the advantageous conditions to which the immi- 
grant and his descendants have, in these United States, 
been admitted. Well educated, forceful, a brilliant 
speaker, effective as an organizer, a lover of the politi- 
cal game, Ryan was soon the recognized leader of the 
new movement. 

He was trusted implicitly. The selection of candi- 
dates for convention places was left largely in his 
hands. Under Mr. Ryan's leadership the fight for 
effective continuation of the Graft Prosecution was car- 
ried on within the Republican party. 

The division in the Union Labor party was scarcely 



The San Francisco Election of 1907 303 

less pronounced. The party, roughly speaking, divided 
with P. H. McCarthy heading the anti-prosecution side, 
and men of the type of Walter Macarthur, one of the 
founders of the party, leading the forces supporting 
Langdon and his associates. 

But here again there was most confusing division. 
Thomas F. Eagan, chairman of the Union Labor Party 
County Committee, for example, was quoted within a 
week of the primaries, as announcing: "Schmitz is an 
ideal candidate (for Mayor). If available, he would be 
nominated by the delegates that will be elected on the 
regular Union Labor ticket." Nevertheless, Mr. Eagan 
was unalterably opposed to Mr. McCarthy heading the 
ticket. 

The Democratic division was less pronounced than 
in either the Republican or Union Labor party. The 
side favoring Taylor, without much reference to Lang- 
don, went to the primary polls under the regular Dem- 
ocratic leadership, with Thomas W. Hickey, chairman 
of the Democratic County Central Committee, at its 
head. Prominent in the opposition was Lewis F. Bying- 
ton, who had preceded Mr. Langdon as District Attor- 
ney. Mr. Byington was brother-in-law of General Tirey 
L. Ford, even then under trial for bribery, and one of 
General Ford's attorneys. 

In the confusion of these many-sided contests, the 
defense had its best opportunity for success. But the 
result, so far as the Democratic and Republican parties 
were concerned, was overwhelmingly successful for the 
prosecution. 320 

320 The outcome of the Republican primaries was looked upon 
as a victory for good government. Said the Call, in discussing the 



304 The San Francisco Election of 1907 

Of the delegates to the Republican convention the 
Ryan (pro-prosecution) forces elected 142, the "Her- 
rin" (anti-prosecution) forces 7 only. Of the 164 del- 
egates to the Democratic convention, 161 were elected 
by the regular (pro-prosecution) element, and 3 by the 
Byington (anti-prosecution) side. The popular vote 
within these parties was scarcely less pronounced. 321 On 
the other hand, within the Union Labor party the anti- 
prosecution forces were overwhelmingly successful, the 
McCarthy faction electing 185 delegates and the forces 
led by Walter Macarthur and his associates 13 only. 

Under the alignment, it was expected that the Re- 
publicans and Democrats would unite without hesita- 
tion upon Taylor and Langdon, leaving the cause of 



returns: "Two things stand out prominently in the returns of the 
primary elections yesterday. One is that the Republicans of San 
Francisco have had enough of Herrin. The other is that they have 
not had enough of the graft prosecution. The victory for decency 
and for the independence of the party from the thralldom in which 
Herrin has so long held it for the use and benefit of the Southern 
Pacific was complete, with a vote large enough to make it plain 
to Herrin and to the interests exposed and to be exposed in the 
debauchery of public servants that they must look elsewhere than 
to the Republicans of San Francisco for the old corrupt conditions. 
The Call takes to itself credit for some share in the accomplish- 
ment of this good work. It was this paper that spoiled Herrin's 
infamous apportionment scheme by which he planned to fill the 
burned district with his dummies and thus control the municipal 
convention. It was this paper that began and carried on to the 
last moment a vigorous campaign in behalf of the decent element 
of the Republican party, whose leadership was in the capable and 
clean hands of Daniel A. Ryan. The Call has no candidates. It 
wants only honest, capable independent men. It made this winning 
fight because it wanted, a clean government for San Francisco and 
because it wanted the graft prosecution carried out to the end." 

321 The primary vote was the largest up to that time cast in 
San Francisco. It was as follows: 

Anti-Herrin (Ryan) Republican 8,116 

Herrin Republicans 3,207 

Irregular Republicans 1,549 

Regular Democratic 2,438 

Byington, Democratic 1,081 

McCarthy, Union Labor 3,655 

Macarthur, Union Labor 2,197 



The San Francisco Election of 1907 305 

the indicted corporation managers to find expression 
in the Union Labor party platform and candidates. 322 

But scarcely had the primary returns been made 
public than the San Francisco Call, generally regarded 
as stanchly on the side of the prosecution, brought 
confusion upon the pro-prosecution element, by suggest- 
ing the candidacy of Mr. Ryan for Mayor and belit- 
tling the candidacy of Mayor Taylor. 

"Ryan," said The Call through its political repre- 
sentative, Mr. George Van Smith, "has not sought and 
is not seeking the Republican nomination for Mayor. 
He may have it forced upon him and find himself the 
recipient of similar endorsement of his powers as a 
boss-buster, from the Democratic organization." 

The Call, in the same issue, hinted that the Demo- 
crats might not nominate Taylor. Without a Demo- 
cratic nomination, Taylor could not expect nomination 
at the hands of the Republicans. 

"That the Democrats will nominate Mayor Taylor," 
said The Call, "is more than doubtful. Mayor Taylor 
was drafted into the city's service. He has not given 
any indication of a desire to serve the city as the head 
of its government after the time when a popularly 
selected successor could be qualified. If the Democrats 



322 On the eve of the primary election, P. H. McCarthy, leader 
of the anti-Prosecution faction of the Union Labor party, issued 
a warning to union men in which he said: "Too much caution 
cannot be exercised by you, nor too much diligence displayed in 
order to protect your rights at the polls today. One of the most 
cunning, deceptive and vicious attacks ever made on organized labor 
in this city is now being launched in order that your wages may 
be cut and your working hours increased to suit the millionaires in 
this city. To do so, those millionaires have drawn to their side 
by what force we are unable to say, certain labor men (Walter 
Macarthur and his associates) with a view to shuffling, confusing 
and thoroughly misleading the labor union voters and their sympa- 
thizers in this city." 



306 The San Francisco Election of 1907 

do not nominate Dr. Taylor, the Republicans would 
scarcely be expected to do so. The fact that the men 
who will make up an almost exclusive majority of the 
Republican convention seem to be committed to the 
idea of nominating Ryan appears to preclude the nomi- 
nation of Taylor by either party." 

The source of The Call's information is not appar- 
ent. Up to the time of the publication of its article, 
August 15, there was no sentiment in San Francisco for 
the election of Mr. Ryan to the Mayoralty. On the 
contrary, the understanding was that Mr. Ryan had 
entered the contest from motives of good citizenship 
only, and that he was in no sense a seeker of office for 
himself. 323 Such had been the understanding during 
the primary campaign; such was the sense of the com- 
munity after the primary vote had been cast. 

All recognized, however, that Mr. Ryan was in a 
position of great power. He had been trusted implicitly. 
The selection of anti-Herrin candidates for delegates 
had been left largely in his hands. Few thought, how- 
ever, that he had selected delegates for the purpose of 
giving himself the Republican nomination for the May- 
oralty. Then, again, aside from the confusion his can- 
didacy would work in the ranks of the anti-Herrin, pro- 



323 Many Ryan Republican district tickets contained the fol- 
lowing 1 printed statement: 

"The candidates on this ticket are pledged to use all their in- 
fluence in the convention to secure the nomination of a ticket of 
capable men and hope that they will be indorsed by the conven- 
tions of all parties. They do not care who these men may be, but 
will vote for no man who can be suspected of peddling offices or 
jobs in return for support. They do not desire nor expect for them- 
selves or for their friends any offices or jobs. No candidate on 
this ticket has ever sought or held a political office or job. The 
candidates on this ticket have all accepted the pledge of the 
Regular Republican League. Daniel A. Ryan, chairman; Perry 
H. Newberry, secretary." 



The San Francisco Election of 1907 307 

prosecution element, Mr. Ryan, while a pleasing young 
man and clever politician, it was generally recognized 
had few qualities usually looked for in the Mayor of a 
community of half a million people. 

To add to the confusion, The Examiner, which was 
now in active opposition to the prosecution, came out 
strongly against Mr. Ryan's candidacy, denouncing it 
as "a grotesque piece of effrontery." "For the primary 
leader," said The Examiner, "to appropriate the office 
to himself, is like the agent of a charity fund determin- 
ing that he is the most worthy object of the charity, and 
putting 324 the money in his own pocket." 



324 The Examiner, in its issue of September 19, 1907, in discuss- 
ing- Mr. Ryan's proposed candidacy said: "It is generally under- 
stood that Mr. Dan Ryan proposes to nominate himself as the 
Republican candidate for Mayor of San Francisco. That he has 
the power to do this thing is one of the curiosities of our political 
system. 

"The theory is that the delegates to a convention represent that 
part of the public which marches under the political banner of a 
political party. But Mr. Ryan evidently considers that the dele- 
gates to the Republican convention were chosen to advance his 
personal political ambitions. 

"The people do not mean that the accidental leaders of a pri- 
mary fight should put the offices in their own pockets. 

"They elect delegates as agents to select candidates from 
among the people. The delegates are the bearers of a trust and 
neither they nor the man who happens to captain them in the 
scramble between factions has a right to appropriate the nomi- 
nations. 

"The trust is not fulfilled if the primary leader assumes that 
because the people elected his primary ticket they want him in 
office. They don't want him, for they don't want primary poli- 
ticians in the Mayor's chair. 

"The theory of any convention is that it is assembled to 
choose the best man in the party for its candidate. The spectacle 
of Mr. Dan Ryan holding a caucus with himself, and deciding that 
he is better qualified to be Mayor of San Francisco than any other 
man in the Republican party, is a grotesque piece of effrontery. 

"All sorts of men rise to the top in primary fights, but most of 
them have a sufficient sense of modesty, if not of the fitness of 
things, to abstain from making themselves the recipients of what 
the delegates have to give. 

"For the primary leader to appropriate the office to himself 
is like the agent of a charity fund determining that he is the most 
worthy object of the charity and putting the money in his own 
pocket." 



308 The San Francisco Election of 1907 

But Ryan's candidacy was not to be defeated by 
adverse criticism. Mr. Ryan had been largely instru- 
mental in selecting the Republican delegates who were 
to name the candidates. Besides, he had the clever sup- 
port, in its local columns at least, of the San Francisco 
Call. He had about him a number of enthusiastic 
young men who were ambitiously active in urging his 
candidacy. 

"Every time the Taylor boomers gain a man they 
lose one," announced Perry Newberry, Secretary of Mr. 
Ryan's organization, and Ryan's right-hand man. "As 
far as the Republicans are concerned Daniel A. Ryan 
is as good as named. It will be Ryan, not Taylor, who 
will sweep the city." 

With the advocacy of Ryan's candidacy, came quiet, 
systematic opposition to the nomination of Langdon. 

With Mr. Ryan and his associates in control of the 
convention that was to nominate, it began to look as 
though the victory which the pro-prosecution Republi- 
cans, under Mr. Ryan's leadership, had won at the 
primaries, was barren indeed. 

Among the Democrats, the opposition to Langdon 
and Taylor was even more discouraging. Langdon had 
been candidate for Governor two years before on the 
Independence League ticket. Theodore A. Bell had had 
the Democratic and Union Labor nominations. Bell had 
been defeated by a plurality. Bell ascribed his defeat to 
Langdon. The so-called Bell Democrats accordingly 
made this an excuse for objecting to Langdon. 325 As 

325 It was anything to defeat Langdon, even though a pro- 
prosecution attorney be employed against him. Hiram W. Johnson, 
for example, was suggested as his opponent. But Johnson let it 
be understood, and with characteristic positiveness, that under no 
considerations would he be a candidate against Langdon. 



The San Francisco Election of 1907 309 

to Taylor, with the ability of the forces at work to 
defeat the prosecution considered, opinion gained daily 
that the failure of the Republican convention to nomi- 
inate Taylor, would be followed by a refusal of the 
Democrats to give him nomination. 

Thus with the supporters of the prosecution over- 
whelmingly successful at the Republican and Demo- 
cratic primaries, there was grave danger that their pur- 
poses would be set aside by political manipulation. 

But at this crisis a new element was injected into 
the situation. 

Citizens who stood for enforcement of the law hasti- 
ly formed a non-partisan organization to uphold the 
hands of the prosecution. 326 They called their organiza- 
tion the Good Government League. Taking for their 
motto "CITIZENSHIP ABOVE PARTISANSHIP/' 
they boldly announced their support of Langdon for 
District Attorney, and of Taylor for Mayor. 

The attitude of San Francisco toward the Graft 
Prosecution was shown by the reception given the new 
organization. Citizens by the thousands sent in their 
application for membership. Funds for the purposes of 
the campaign were forwarded by men in all walks of 
life. 

The Democratic leaders were the first to appreciate 
the significance of the reception given the new move- 
ment. What was practically a combination between the 
two forces resulted. This insured the nomination of 

326 The members of the Good Government League Executive 
Committee were: E. L. Baldwin, J. E. Cutten, George Renner, 
Gen. Samuel W. Backus, George R. Fletcher, Sigmund Bauer, B. 
H. Gurnette, Frank W. Marvin, Frank W. Gale, L. C. McAfee, 
George Uhl, Rev. Chas. N. Lathrop, Isidor Jacobs, Rudolph Spreck- 
els, Edgar A. Mathews. 



310 The San Francisco Election of 1907 

Langdon and Taylor by the Democrats. It also assured 
the nomination of Langdon by the Republicans, for 
after the stand taken by the Good Government League, 
for either Republican or Democratic party to have 
rejected Langdon would have been an exhibition of 
"poor politics." But Ryan still controlled the Republi- 
can convention. The Republican convention nominated 
Mr. Ryan for Mayor. 

Mr. Ryan's nomination was not accomplished with- 
out protest. The citizens who attended the convention 
as spectators were overwhelmingly for Taylor. Taylor 
received 53 out of the 148 convention votes, 95 being 
cast for Mr. Ryan. The minority charged that in the 
nomination of Mr. Ryan, the Republicans of San Fran- 
cisco had been betrayed, and that they would not be 
bound by the nomination nor support the nominee. 327 

The Union Labor party, following out its policy of 
opposition to the prosecution, nominated P. H. McCar- 
thy 328 for Mayor, and Frank McGowan for District 
Attorney. 

The planks of the several parties dealing with the 
prosecution were characteristic of the conventions from 
which they issued. 

The Union Labor plank definitely pledged its candi- 
date for District Attorney to prosecution of the Super- 

327 The minority which voted for Taylor, in a memorial to the 
convention, charged "that the majority of the delegates to this 
convention have betrayed the confidence reposed in them by their 
constituents" and gave notice that it would not be bound by the 
nomination of the convention for Mayor and would not support 
the nominee, but would do all in its power to further the election 
of Dr. Edward R. Taylor. 

328 The Union Labor party convention also had its sensations. 
Thomas F. Eagan, for example, and his followers bolted the con- 
vention because of McCarthy's nomination. The Carmen's Union 
refused to accept the Union Labor party ticket because Langdon 
had not been nominated for District Attorney. 



The San Francisco Election of 1907 311 

visors who had confessed to bribe-taking although it 
had been clearly pointed out that such prosecution 
would bar effective prosecution of those responsible for 
the bribe-giving. 329 

329 Heney, on the eve of election, in reply to McGowan's argu- 
ment that the bribe-takers should be prosecuted, effectively an- 
swered this contention. Heney's communication read: "To Frank 
McGowan, Esq. Sir: You are reported by the newspapers as 
having stated that you will prosecute the boodling Supervisors 
and that you will also prosecute Patrick Calhoun and the other 
rich bribers, and that you will grant immunity to no one. I invite 
you to answer specifically the following questions either in the 
newspapers or the next time you make a public speech: 

"1. If you prosecute Supervisor Lonergan (or any other Super- 
visor) for accepting a bribe to influence his vote in the matter of 
the trolley franchise, what witness, or witnesses, will you call to 
prove that he accepted the bribe? 

"2. Every child in town now knows that if Lonergan received 
the money at all it was from Supervisor Gallagher. Will you prove 
the fact by Gallagher? If you call Gallagher as a witness, how 
do you expect to induce him to testify without granting him 
immunity? 

"3. When you prosecute James L. Gallagher for giving a 
bribe to Tom Lonergan or to any other Supervisor to influence his 
vote on the trolley franchise matter, by what witness or witnesses, 
will you prove that Gallagher paid the money to Lonergan or to 
any other Supervisor? Will you call Lonergan or any other Super- 
visor as a witness, and when you call him, how will you induce 
him to testify without granting him immunity? 

"4. By what witness do you expect to convict Gallagher of 
giving a bribe, or Tom Lonergan, or any other Supervisor of ac- 
cepting a bribe in the matter of fixing the gas rate, or in the 
Home Telephone Company franchise matter? 

"5. If you prosecute Ruef for giving money to Gallagher to 
distribute to the Supervisors to influence their vote on the trolley 
franchise, by what witness, or witnesses, will you prove that Ruef 
gave the money to Gallagher? Will you put Gallagher on the stand 
to prove it, and if so, how will :^ou induce him to testify without 
granting him immunity? Will you put Ford on the stand to prove 
that he gave the money to Ruef, and if so, how will you get him 
to testify without giving him immunity? Will you put Pat Cal- 
houn on the stand to prove that he gave the money to Ford to 
give Ruef to give to the Supervisors, and if so, how will you 
induce Pat to testify without giving him immunity? 

"6. You say that you will prosecute Patrick Calhoun for 
bribing the Supervisors to influence their votes in the matter of 
the trolley franchise. By what witnesses will you prove that the 
money was given to Gallagher or to any of the other Supervisors 
to influence their votes in this matter? Will you prove by Ford 
that he gave the money to Ruef, and if so, how will you induce 
Ford to testify without giving him immunity? Will you prove by 
Ruef that he gave the money to Gallagher to distribute to the 
other Supervisors, and if so, how will you prove it by Gallagher 
without giving him immunity? Will you prove by the other 
Supervisors that they received money from Gallagher, and if so, 
how will you induce each of them to testify without giving each of 
them immunity? 

"7. Will you prosecute Frank G. Drum and the other officials 



312 The San Francisco Election of 1907 

The Republican plank left the reader in doubt as to 
whether or not the delinquent Supervisors were to be 
prosecuted. The Democratic plank alone pledged un- 
qualified support to the prosecution "in any effort it may 
make to convict any guilty person." 330 



of the gas company for bribing the Supervisors for fixing the gas 
rates, and if so, how will you prove that the money was paid 
without granting immunity to Ruef and to some or all of the 
Supervisors? 

"8. Will you prosecute A. K. Detweiler for bribing the Super- 
visors in the Home Telephone franchise matter, and if so, how 
will you prove your case against him without granting immunity 
to Ruef and to some or all of the members of the Board of 
Supervisors? 

"9. Can jurisdiction be conferred on a court by consent, and if 
so, how could you proceed with the Ford trial on a legal holiday? 

"10. If you found it necessary to grant immunity to either the 
bribe-taker or the bribe-giver in the trolley franchise matter to 
prevent an utter failure of justice and the escape of both the 
bribe-takers and the bribe-givers, to which side will you recom- 
mend the granting of immunity by the court? Will you prosecute 
the friendless, insignificant Supervisors and grant immunity to ex- 
Attorney-General Tirey L. Ford and his employer, Patrick Cal- 
houn, president of the United Railroads of San Francisco, or will 
you recommend that the court shall grant immunity to the friend- 
less and insignificant Supervisors in order to convict the rich, 
powerful and influential Patrick Calhoun and his general counsel, 
Tirey L. Ford? 

"Yours, etc., FRANCIS J. HENEY." 

330 The Republican convention "pledged its party and its nomi- 
nees to assist and continue the vigorous prosecution of all persons 
guilty of crime, in whatever walk of life, high or low, in San 
Francisco," and "to incessant and energetic war on graft in every 
form, to the end that this plague may be exterminated from the 
body politic." 

The Union Labor plank on the Graft Prosecution was as fol- 
lows: "We demand the punishment of all offenders against the 
law, and we pledge our nominee for District Attorney to prosecute 
vigorously all bribers, boodlers and grafters without distinction, 
and particularly do we pledge him to prosecute those public of- 
ficials, confessed criminals, who have been guilty of the greatest 
crime in the city's history, but who have been permitted to go 
unwhipped of justice, and to remain outside the walls of the 
penitentiary behind which they should now be imprisoned. We 
further pledge our nominee for District Attorney to abolish private 
prisons, wholesale 'immunity baths,' and all other institutions 
created for the benefit and protection of criminals." 

The Democratic Graft Prosecution plank read: "We commend 
the work of the prosecution, which has removed from public office 
criminals who have dishonored and debauched our city and has 
secured convictions that must be forever a warning to official 
wrongdoers and those who participate with them in crime; and we 
pledge our support to the prosecution in any effort it may make 
to convict any guilty person." 



The San Francisco Election of 1907 313 

The new alignment which followed the clearing of 
the atmosphere by the nomination of candidates, and 
the adoption of platforms, involved some astonishing 
changes. 

The Examiner, which, on September 19, preceding 
the nominations, had described Mr. Ryan's candidacy 
as "a grotesque piece of effrontery," and compared him 
to the custodian of a trust fund who puts the money 
in his own pocket, announced its support of Mr. Ryan 
for Mayor. On October 20, a month and a day after 
publication of the custodian-of-a-trust-fund editorial 
article, The Examiner "unhesitatingly recommended to 
all the voters of San Francisco," Mr. Ryan, "as the man 
best qualified to be the next Mayor of the city." 

On the other hand, The Call, which was the first to 
suggest Mr. Ryan's candidacy, describing him a heroic 
young "boss buster," to whom the Democrats could log- 
ically turn for a mayoralty candidate, after his nomina- 
tion, described him as "a cheap politician itching for 
office," 331 whose candidacy was the one element which 
threw a doubt upon the election of Mayor Taylor. Fol- 
lowing the conventions, The Call supported Taylor as 
against the field. 

331 "There never would have been doubt anywhere about Tay- 
lor's successor," said the Call in its issue of November 5, "if it 
had not been for the grossly selfish and unpatriotic course of 
Daniel A. Ryan. The one possibility of McCarthy's election was 
opened to him by Ryan. Failing of other support, Ryan turned 
renegade to all his party professions and went into an infamous 
alliance with that arch enemy of Republicanism, Hearst. For four 
weeks he has been scrambling for votes. . . . Ryan has fully 
revealed himself as a cheap politician itching for office. He has 
boasted of his youth, and yet he was the first of the candidates 
to break down and go to bed. He has declaimed about his own 
honesty, until his voice is in tatters and has filled the air with 
promises of what he would do if elected. Never has he explained 
or attempted to explain the nature of those 'certain concessions' 
that led him to nominate himself, although he knew that in so 
doing he was jeopardizing the future of his city." 



314 The San Francisco Election of 1907 

The Chronicle tactfully refrained from taking sides 
until after the nominations were announced. 332 Then 
The Chronicle gave support to Taylor. If the shifting 
policy of the newspapers had raised a doubt as to where 
the people of San Francisco stood on the issue, that 
doubt was dispelled by the opening meeting of the 
Taylor-Langdon campaign. The largest auditorium in 
San Francisco was packed to the doors, 833 with citizens 



332 Said the Chronicle of Mr. Ryan's candidacy in its issue of 
October 3, 1907: "The Chronicle has neither apologies nor regrets 
for urging its readers to support the Regular Republican League 
movement headed by Daniel A. Ryan. We believed at the time, as 
others believed, that Mr. Ryan's sole desire was good government 
for San Francisco and that such desire was unsmirched by personal 
ambition. General confidence in the sincerity of Mr. Ryan and his 
associates led to the triumphant election of the delegates to the 
Republican convention named and approved by Mr. Ryan, which 
was accepted throughout the country as evidence that the people 
of San Francisco were sound at heart. 

"When we urged the public to support the Ryan primary tickets, 
we did so, not in the interest of Mr. Ryan, but in the interest of 
good government. We considered Mr. Ryan in the light of a useful 
and public-spirited citizen, upon whom, in due time, the people 
would delight to confer official honors should he be willing to accept 
them. Those who voted the Ryan ticket at the primaries did not 
vote for Mr. Ryan, but for the cause which he championed. As 
for considering him a candidate for Mayor, nobody thought of it. 
It is no disparagement to a young man like Mr. Ryan to say that as 
yet he has no such standing in the community as justifies him in 
aspiring to such an honor." , 

In its issue of October 5 the Chronicle said: "The moral col- 
lapse of Daniel A. Ryan is deeply regretted by every lover of San 
Francisco. It is not a matter of the rise or fall of one man. It is 
a question of whether the people will ever again trust any man 
who appears as a leader of reform. Few men ever get such an 
opportunity as Mr. Ryan has thrown away. Doubtless the lesson 
is for the people never again to trust an unknown man. It is 
not too much to ask of any aspirant to leadership on an im- 
portant scale that he shall have some record of honorable achieve- 
ment of some kind as an earnest of what to expect of him should 
the confidence reposed in him place him in a position of power." 

333 The Call, in speaking of the Taylor-Langdon meeting said: 
"Young Mr. Ryan ought to have been at that meeting. We have 
nothing against Mr. Ryan except that he is not the man of the 
hour. We shall not even reproach him with his youth. That is not 
his fault and he will get over that. But he is not the man of the 
hour. The people have said it. Mr. Ryan embodies no principle., 
To the people of San Francisco he means nothing in particular at 
this critical time. He might have read that message in the mighty 
roar that went up from the meeting in welcome of Dr. Taylor. 
Mayor Taylor stands for something, stands for much. Mr. Ryan 
has only his own ambition and a certain command of language." 



The San Francisco Election of 1907 315 

whose one purpose, expressed by approving cheers 
every time the subject was mentioned, was support of 
the prosecution which had broken up the Schmitz-Ruef 
organization, and which bade fair to bring to book the 
corrupters of the municipal government. 

The meeting was thoroughly representative. Labor 
touched elbows with capital. Among the speakers were 
representative Labor Union leaders, who had definitely 
broken with the Union Labor party. 

"It is inconceivable to me," said Walter Macarthur, 
one of the organizers of the Union Labor party, in a 
ringing address, "that any honest thinking labor man 
would stand for the proposition that those men who 
have debauched the officials of our city should go scot 
free while the victims of their cupidity be sent behind 
the prison bars alone. I believe that labor will join 
with all honest people in declaring that if the corrupt 
bribe-taker is punished the man who is at the head of 
this corruption must be punished also. That is the 
issue of this campaign and I believe that election day 
will prove the virtue of my faith." 

That the contest for the District Attorney's office 
overshadowed in importance the mayoralty fight was 
fully recognized. The Union Labor party, which had 
nominated and elected Langdon in 1905, had repudi- 
ated him, and named Frank McGowan as Langdon's 
only serious opponent. The Republicans and Democrats, 
who had under a fusion arrangement in 1905 opposed 
Langdon's election ; united, in 1907, to fight for his 
continuance in office. The public service corporations, 
especially those whose officials were under indictment, 
generally opposed Mr. Langdon's election, and sup- 



3 16 The San Francisco Election of 1907 

ported the candidacy of his Union Labor party opponent. 

This was particularly astonishing in the case of the 
United Railroads, whose president, Mr. Patrick Cal- 
houn, was even then posing as a "labor union buster," 
while the United Railroads was very effectively grind- 
ing to pieces the San Francisco Carmen's Union. 334 

Nevertheless, there was certain consistency in the 
political course taken by the United Railroads. What- 
ever the differences President Calhoun, in his role as 
a "union buster," may have had with the labor union, 
there was much in common between him and the San 
Francisco Union Labor party as headed by Mr. Mc- 
Carthy. 335 President Calhoun and his company opposed 
the prosecution vigorously. Mr. McCarthy and his 
party went quite as far in this opposition. President 
Calhoun was most emphatic in his denunciation of those 
who had made the graft prosecution possible. Mr. 
McCarthy was scarcely less emphatic in his denuncia- 
tion. Indeed, Mr. McCarthy opened his campaign with 
an attack upon the graft prosecution. Inasmuch as 
the one issue before the people was the continuance o£ 
the graft prosecution along the lines that had proved 
so distasteful to Mr. Calhoun and those in the same 
predicament as himself, the support of the Union Labor 



334 The San Francisco Call, in its issue of November 5, charged 
that orders had gone out from the United Railroads to "vote for 
McCarthy and the Union Labor ticket — straight." In the cars 
of the United Railroads appeared dodgers which read: "Working- 
men. Workingmen — Are you going to put a big stick into Spreckels' 
hands to club you over the head with?" 

335 The same is true of the Los Angeles Times, which has a 
national reputation as an opponent of organized labor. The Times, 
while at issue with Mr. McCarthy on the question of the desirability 
of unions, was scarcely less vehement than he in denunciation of 
the San Francisco graft prosecution. 



The San Francisco Election of 1907 317 

party candidate for District Attorney by a union-labor- 
busting corporation was not entirely inconsistent. 

And yet, Mr. McGowan, the Union Labor party 
candidate, definitely pledged himself to continue the 
prosecution, but he promised that the prosecution which 
he would carry on should not "disturb business," that 
Heney 336 should no longer be retained as special pros- 
ecutor, that the Supervisors who had confessed to 
bribe-giving should be prosecuted 337 as well as those 
who had given bribes. 

This last was one of the chief arguments advanced 
in support of Mr. McGowan's candidacy. On the 
ground that a mistake had been made, if a wrong had 
not been done, when the Supervisors were granted im- 
munity, 338 it was urged that Mr. Langdon should not 
be continued in the District Attorney's office. 

336 One of the allegations made against Heney was that he 
would not prosecute Patrick Calhoun, because Heney's brother-in- 
law was employed by Calhoun as a detective. This argument was 
intended to weaken Heney and the prosecution with the union ele- 
ment that Calhoun was endeavoring to crush. 

337 In a political advertisement which appeared in the San Fran- 
cisco Call November 3, 1907, Mr. McGowan said: "If elected Dis- 
trict Attorney I will prosecute every man accused of crime, regard- 
less of his position in life. I will continue the present graft prose- 
cution with more vigor, and the District Attorney's office will net 
be used for politics, nor to disturb business. I will be the District 
Attorney in law and in fact, and I will never allow any man or 
set of men to control the office for any purpose. I will honorably 
enforce the law without the aid of any millionaire's money." 

338 Langdon, at the opening of the Republican campaign, took 
up the question of the prosecution's policy in granting immunity 
to the Supervisors. He said: 

"In this prosecution we have tried to be practical, to be 
effective. What would you have said if we had made a scapegoat 
of a petty criminal and let the giants go? What would you have 
said if in all this graft and corruption we had arrested and jailed 
two or three obscure Supervisors you had never heard of before 
they came to office, and will never hear of them again now that 
they are retired to private life, and had let escape the giants in 
crime ? 

"There have been graft exposures before in the history of 
American municipalities and the graft has gone on. And it was 
bound to go on so long as the prosecutions failed to stop the sources 



3 18 The San Francisco Election of 1907 

The election returns 339 were conclusive of San 
Francisco's attitude on the several issues raised. Taylor 
was elected Mayor, with a clear majority of 415 over 
all his competitors. Langdon's majority over all com- 
petitors, including the Socialist candidate, was 13,510, 
his plurality over McGowan being 14,808. And with 

of evil, to gather into the fold of the penitentiary the corrupt 
men of business and the corrupt political leaders who have dared 
to use weak men for their own ends. These giants in crime are 
perfectly willing that the physical life of the weak men they use 
shall be fed into the jails of the State to appease public wrath 
exactly as they have been willing to use up the moral life of these 
men to satisfy their own greedy needs in the Board of Supervisors. 
Profiting by the mistakes of previous prosecutions, this office has 
struck straight at the very roots of public graft; at the crooked 
public service corporations; but which of the criminals were to be 
allowed to give evidence for the State and enjoy its alluring pro- 
tection; the giants of crime who have always been most responsible 
and who have always escaped or the petty, miserable fellows who 
have entered upon these things through ignorance and weakness? 

"Immunity had to be given in order that crime might be punished 
and it was given to the Supervisors that the very tap roots of 
political corruption might be torn from the soil in which they 
thrived. We did it because this prosecution has a moral as well 
as a legal significance. It is time to stop the cynicism of common 
men when they view democracy and say it is for the powerful and 
the rich; that the poor must go to jail for the theft of bread and 
the rich escape for the theft of privilege, the purchase of men's 
souls and the degradation of government. It is time to stop the 
brazen and confident effrontery of the irresponsible criminal rich, 
who commit crimes and rest back, thinking they can buy judges 
as they bought legislators and executives, and knowing they can 
buy legal talent to interpose every technicality in every courtroom 
until justice is a human travesty tangled in its own web. 

"We are after the 'men higher up' because they are the severest 
menace to our institutions, the enduring factors that program and 
bribe each Board of Supervisors as they come and go. We are 
after the 'men higher up' so as to make criminal acquisition un- 
profitable in terms of human desire. We are after the 'men 
higher up' so that young men and women growing up in this and 
other communities will once more believe with ardent fervor not 
only that dishonesty does not pay, but that of all the goods on 
this earth the greatest treasure is a straightforward life." 

339 The vote for Mayor and for District Attorney was as fol- 
lows: 

For Mayor — 

Taylor 28,766 

Ryan 9,255 

McCarthy 17,583 

Reguin (Soc.) 1,503 

For District Attorney — 

Langdon 34,923 

McGowan 20,115 

Kirk (Soc.) 1,298 



The San Francisco Election of 1907 319 

the election of Taylor and Langdon 34 ° were elected all 
the Good Government League candidates for Super- 
visors. 

The Graft Prosecution had successfully passed an- 
other crisis. It had, too, received overwhelming en- 
dorsement of The People at the polls. 



340 In commenting upon the outcome of the election, the Ex- 
aminer, in its issue of November 6, said: "And this revolt of union 
labor against misrepresentation in office began long ago. Before 
the primaries, when most of the registering was done, it was ob- 
served that the number of Republicans recorded was far in excess 
of the adherents of union labor. The story was told then. Dis- 
gusted with the dishonesty of the men they had placed in office, 
finding the local Democratic party a mere memory, they registered 
as Republicans because they were determined to vote against the 
representatives of Ruef and Schmitz who had captured their or- 
ganization. 

"Langdon's majority will surprise no one. His election was a 
matter of course, for union labor, like all other decent elements in 
the community, was determined to sustain the prosecution of the 
grafters. 

"The swing of union labor to Taylor will surprise the gentlemen 
who have been so fond of assuming that the working people would 
vote as a class regardless of principle. The fact that they set aside 
all class feeling, all personal preference, and rolled up a big ma- 
jority in favor of the man considered most likely to defeat the 
zebra-striped bandits who had captured their organization proves 
that government in America is safe in the hands of the plain people. 

"It is union labor, and union labor chiefly, which has saved San 
Francisco from McCarthy and McGowan." 

"Yesterday," said the Chronicle the morning after the election, 
"was a great day for San Francisco. It was the turn of the tide. 
It was the beginning of the ascent to nobler ideals and better 
days. The passions of the conflict will soon die away. With an 
honest government assured, capital will not shun us but seek 
us. And we can look back on the events of the last six years as 
we remember a nightmare from which we awake to find ourselves 
in security and peace." 

"The indicted bribe-givers," said the Call, "may as well make 
up their minds that there is no way of escape for them except 
through trial and by the verdicts of the juries. The people have 
spoken and they have said that the clean-up must be thorough. 
The sweeping success of Langdon means that the prosecution of 
the grafters will be pressed to its fitting conclusion upon the facts 
and under the law. There need be no delay now. Soon all the 
cases should be settled and another chapter added to the history 
of San Francisco — a chapter in which will have been written the 
means, the manner and the fullness of our atonement for Schmitz- 
Ruef chapter just before it, the vindication of the city's good name." 



CHAPTER XXII. 
Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef. 

On January 8, 1908, the municipal officials elected 
with Mayor Taylor assumed the duties of their office. 
That day, Ruef was taken from the custody of the 
elisor and locked up in the county jail. In the jail with 
him were Schmitz, convicted of the extortion charge 
to which Ruef had pleaded guilty, and Glass, who had 
been convicted of bribery. 

The following day, January 9, the Appellate Court, 
for the First District, handed down a decision in the 
Schmitz extortion case, which, later sustained by the 
Supreme Court, unlocked the prison doors not only for 
Schmitz, but for Ruef also. 341 

The decision was the first serious setback in the 
graft cases that District Attorney Langdon's office had 
received. 

The prosecution had prevented Ruef seizing the 
District Attorney's office; had defeated the efforts of 
the defense to have the indicting Grand Jury declared 
an invalid body; had overcome the resistance of the 
defendants to facing trial jurors; had, after meeting 



341 The opinion was written by Justice Cooper and concurred 
in by Justices Hall and Kerrigan. This is the same Kerrigan who 
appears in the Santa Cruz banquet scene picture, in which Ruef 
occupies the position of honor with the Republican nominee for 
Governor, J. M. Gillett, standing at his back with hand resting on 
Ruef's shoulder. (See Chapter IV.) 

Supreme Justice Henshaw, whose sensational action in Ruef's 
favor will appear in another chapter, is also one of the Santa Cruz 
banquet group. 



Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 321 

the clever opposition of the best legal talent obtainable 
for money, forced trials before juries and secured con- 
victions; and finally, the prosecution had met the de- 
fense before the larger jury of The People, and, at 
the polls, had won again. But, with a stroke of the 
pen, the Appellate Court swept aside the greater part 
of the accomplishment of fifteen-months struggle 
against corruption. The court found the indictment 
under which Schmitz had been convicted of extortion 
to be insufficient and ordered the defendant to be dis- 
charged as to the indictment. 

In as much as Ruef, Schmitz's co-defendant, in- 
dicted jointly with him for extortion, had plead guilty 
to the same indictment as that under which Schmitz 
had been convicted, the effect of the decision was to 
free Ruef as well as Schmitz. 

Before passing upon the sufficiency of the indict- 
ment, the court took occasion to deal with the points 
of error as raised by the defense. On five principal 
points the court found that error had been commit- 
ted. 342 On this showing, the case could have been sent 
back to the Superior Court for re-trial. In that event, 
Ruef's status would not have been affected. But the 



342 The Appellate Court enumerated the following errors at the 
trial: 

(1) That the trial court erred in allowing the peremptory chal- 
lenge of a juror after he had been sworn to try the case; and the 
removal, after he had been sworn, of a second juror without cause. 

(2) That error was committed in the appointment of the elisor 
that had charge of the jury. 

(3) That the court erred in admitting hearsay evidence of wit- 
nesses, Loupe, Blanco, Malfanti, Debret and Rosenthal. 

(4) That error was committed when Schmitz was required, under 
cross-examination, to answer question as to whether he had re- 
ceived from Ruef part of the money extorted from the French 
restaurant keepers. 

(5) That Ruef's testimony that he had divided the money with 
Schmitz was not proper rebuttal evidence. 

11 



322 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 

court went back of the trial to the indictment, on points 
raised in the defendant's demurrer, found for the de- 
fendant, and held the indictment to be insufficient. 

In the discussion of the decision which followed, 
criticism was confined almost exclusively to the court's 
rulings on the sufficiency of the indictment. The point 
raised was that the indictment did not state facts suffi- 
cient to show that any public offense had been com- 
mitted. 

The court held in effect that the facts presented 
did not, under the definitions of the California codes, 
constitute the crime of extortion. 

In the California Penal Code 343 extortion is defined 
as "the obtaining of property from another, with his 
consent, induced by a wrongful use of force, or fear 
or under color of official right." The section follow- 
ing 344 defines "Fear such as will constitute extortion 
may be induced by a threat either: (1) to do an unlaw- 
ful injury to the person or property of the individual 
threatened, or to any relative of his, or member of his 
family." 

The court found that the threat which induced the 
fear in the Schmitz-Ruef extortion cases, was a threat 
to prevent the parties from obtaining a liquor license, 
and thus to prevent them from carrying on the busi- 
ness of selling wines and liquors at retail. A license 
to sell liquor, the court showed, is not property in the 
ordinary sense of the word, 345 but a mere permission, 

343 California Penal Code, Sec. 518. 

344 California Penal Code, Sec. 519. 

345 The general feeling regarding the Schmitz decision was well 
expressed by Attorney J. C. Hutchinson, in a letter to Justice 
Cooper. The letter follows: 

"Hon. James A. Cooper, Presiding Justice of the District Court 



Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 323 

and the license is but the evidence that the permission 
has been given by the proper authorities. "There is 
grave doubt," 346 the court held, "as to whether a threat 
to prevent a party from obtaining a permission or 
license by one who has no authority in the premises, is 
a threat to injure property within the meaning of the 
sections quoted." 

But the court found it unnecessary to decide this 
question, for the reason it held the indictment insuffi- 
cient "because it does not allege nor show that the 
specific injury threatened was an unlawful injury." 347 

of Appeals, First District, 1420 Sutter street, city. Dear Sir: Yours 
of the 15th inst. received. I did not expect you to reply to mine of 
the 13th inst., which was more in the nature of an ejaculatory pro- 
test than a letter. Nevertheless, I think you are right to reply, espe- 
cially as I know you have replied to letters complimenting you on 
the same decision. 

"I have never before written a letter to a judge commenting upon 
a decision in which he had taken part, and I ordinarily would con- 
sider such a course highly unprofessional. During twenty-five years' 
practice, I have always remained silent in the face of decisions, 
however adverse, even in some cases where I was perfectly well 
aware that improper influences behind the scenes had prevented me 
from obtaining justice. But in this case the situation is different 
from anything I have ever experienced. The very air seems to be 
full of revolutionary feeling. At the universities, clubs, in the 
trains, on the streets and in the home, I find no one (except the 
friends, connections and lawyers of the grafters) speak with any- 
thing but emphatic protest against this decision so far as it re- 
lates to the validity of the indictment. 

"I have cast no personal reflection upon yourself. The attack 
is upon the atmospheric environment of a statement which could 
lead a man of your integrity and intelligence honestly to believe 
that such a decision could be correct; and if the Supreme Court 
should unanimously hold the same, that would, according to my 
view, only make the matter so much the worse. 

"Very respectfully yours, J. C. HUTCHINSON." 

346 See 7 Cal. App. Reports, page 330. 

347 The Court, in discussing this point, said: "The indictment 
does use the words 'unlawful injury' in the first part of it; but 
when the facts are specifically set forth as to what the defend- 
ants threatened to do we find that the threat was that defendants 
'would prevent the said Joseph Malfanti. Charles Kelb and William 
Lafrenz from receiving said license or obtaining the same.' There 
is no allegation that any unlawful act was threatened, and the 
attorneys for the prosecution frankly admit that they rely upon 
the fact that the defendants obtained the money by threatening 
to do an injury, which they claim was unlawful solely for the 



324 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 

To the man on the street, the reading of the opinion 
conveyed the impression at least, that according to the 
Appellate Court, when Schmitz had shown his power 
to prevent the French Restaurants getting their licenses, 
thus endangering investments valued as high as $400,- 
000, and Ruef because of the fear engendered by this 
showing, acting with Schmitz, had secured large sums 
of money from the enterprises thus threatened, the 
crime of extortion had not been committed. 



reason that the threats were made with intent to extort money. 
In other words, it is claimed that even though the French-restau- 
rant proprietors were violating the law, and conducting immoral 
places used as resorts by lewd women, and thus not legally entitled 
to a license to sell liquor, a threat to prevent the issuance of 
licenses to such places by laying the facts before the Board of 
Police Commissioners in a legal manner, constitutes a crime if such 
threat was made with the intent to extort money. Such, in our 
opinion, is not the law. The statute uses the words that the threat 
must be to do 'an unlawful injury'; and in order to charge a crime 
the indictment must aver in some way that the threat was to 
do an unlawful injury. It is apparent from the language of the 
statute which we have hereinbefore quoted, that it is not every 
kind of fear that will support a charge of extortion because of 
property obtained thereby. The fear must be induced by one of 
the threats enumerated in the statute. The Legislature has seen 
fit to provide that the threatened injury to property upon which 
a charge of extortion may be predicated must be an unlawful in- 
jury to property. That is, the injury threatened must be, in itself, 
unlawful, irrespective of the purpose with which the threat is 
made. As the word 'unlawful' is used in the statute it qualifies the 
'injury' and not the 'threat.' Unlawful means contrary to law. 
It is true that from a high standard of ethics it could not be 
claimed that one could extort money by a threat to do a lawful 
act, if the intent was to get money by the use of the threat, but 
every wrong is not made a crime. There are many wrongs done 
every day that are not enumerated in the category of crimes 
contained in the Penal Code that are of much more serious conse- 
quence in their nature than others which are defined therein; but 
we must look to the statute to find whether or not an act is a 
public offense for which a prosecution will lie. To procure prop- 
erty from others by a mere threat to do a lawful act is not a 
crime. The object of the statute — or at least one of its objects — 
is to protect the party from whom the property is extorted; 
and if such party pays the money in order 1o secure protection in 
violating the law himself he cannot be heard to complain. He in 
such cmso would be a party to the violation of the law. In this 
case, if the parties as a fact paid the money in order to prevent 
the evidence as to the character of places they kept from being 
exposed to the Board of Police Commissioners, they are not in a 
position to complain." 



Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 325 

The decision was received with protest 348 and de- 
nunciation. The Call dubbed it "bad law, bad logic 
and bad morals." "Any ordinary intelligence," said The 
Examiner, "would construe the threat to take away a 
license to sell liquor from a restaurant unless a certain 
sum of money was paid as the plainest kind of extor* 
tion." 

"When," said Dr. William Rader of Calvary Pres- 
byterian church, in a sermon preached on the evening 
of the Sunday after the decision was made public, Jan- 
uary 12, 1908, "extortion is not a crime, when bribery 
is not even a wrong, when a confessed felon can learn 
that he is really righteous, and that his trial, confession 
and conviction have all been nothing but a mistake — 



348 The Examiner, in its issue of January 11, 1908, said of the 
decision: 

"The District Court of Appeal has overturned the conviction 
of Mayor Schmitz on the ground that threatening to prevent tL:e 
French-restaurant keepers from getting a license to sell liquor 
does not constitute the crime of extortion, with which he is 
charged. This is one of the decisions that will aggravate the dis- 
satisfaction of the public with the courts. 

"Abe Ruef, once political boss of San Francisco, testified that 
he had divided with the Mayor the 'fees' for getting the licenses 
which Schmitz had held up until the money was paid. 'A license 
to sell liquor is not property in the ordinary sense of the word,' 
declares the court, making the point that the indictment 'does not 
-allege any threat to injure property.' 

"Any ordinary intelligence would construe the threat to take 
away a license to sell liquor from a restaurant unless a certain 
sum of money was paid as the plainest kind of extortion, par- 
ticularly when the Mayor was shown to have shared in the money 
thus exacted, and the fact that the contrary ruling of a court acts 
as a release of a man whose guilt was clearly established, will not 
change that view." 

"Even the lay mind," said the Call, "is competent to reach 
the conclusion that this decision is bad law, bad logic and bad 
morals." 

The decision was generally condemned by the interior press. 
The Sacramento Bee denounced it as a "palpable evasion of jus- 
tice." The Oakland Enquirer stated that it came as a "shock and 
a surprise to the law- respecting people of California and of the 
entire country." "San Francisco in particular," said the Los 
Angeles Evening News, "California in general and the republic at 
large have suffered great wrong by reason of this reprehensible 
decision." 



326 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 

a slight mistake — I repeat that however correct this 
may be legally and ethically, it has the effect of making 
us stand amazed at the rapid revolutions of the legal 
wheels. Perhaps tomorrow we shall learn that this last 
decision has been a mistake, too. I hope so; I believe 
so." 

"We of this city," said Rev. Dr. Evans at Grace 
Episcopal Cathedral, "are dumfounded by a judicial 
pronouncement which enables the high officials of our 
city to rob and plunder without any technical breaking 
of the law. It is enough — such an audacious mockery 
of the first principles of common sense — to justify the 
appointment of a lunacy commission to inquire into the 
sanity of men who could formulate such a judgment 
and it ought to provoke an explosion of righteous 
indignation from one end of the State to the other. 
We need not hesitate to declare that such an opinion 
as this has its inspiration in that place where public 
sentiment without a single dissenting note would give 
it its unanimous approval." 

The decision did not immediately release Ruef and 
Schmitz. The prosecution had still an appeal to the 
Supreme Court for a re-hearing and, pending such an 
appeal, the defendants remained behind the bars. This 
delay annoyed those interested in seeing the graft 
defendants go free. Stories were circulated that the 
prosecution would not appeal. But the prosecution did 
appeal. Three months later, the Supreme Court ren- 
dered its decision. 349 

The decision was against the prosecution. 

349 See California Appellate Reports, in which the Supreme 
Court decision is printed, Vol. No. 7, Page 369. 



Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 327 

"The (Supreme) court is unanimous in the opin- 
ion," the decision read, "that the District Court of Ap- 
peal was correct in its conclusion that the indictment 
was insufficient, in that it did not show that the specific 
injury to the property of the restaurant-keepers threat- 
ened by the defendant was an 'unlawful injury.' " 

The Supreme Court went a step further than the 
Appellate Court had done and attacked the indictment 
on the ground that it had not set forth that Schmitz 
was Mayor at the time of the alleged extortion, nor 
that Ruef was a political boss practically in control of 
the municipal government. 

The prosecution in its application for a rehearing 
had set forth that "it will be found and decided by this 
court that levying blackmail upon licensed businesses 
by the Mayor and the political boss of a metropolitan 
community is a crime under the law of California and 
should not go unwhipped of justice." 

This observation was denounced in the Supreme 
Court's decision as "a gross misstatement of the case 
and of the question to be decided as presented by the 
indictment." 

"We again emphasize the fact," reads the opinion, 
"that the indictment does not aver that Schmitz was 
Mayor, or that Ruef was a political boss, or that either 
of them had any power, or influence, or control over 
the Police Commissioners, or that they threatened to 
use such power, influence or control in preventing the 
issuance of a license." 

The storm of protest with which this opinion was 
received was even greater than that which followed the 
Appellate Court decision. Once more did press, pulpit 



328 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 

and public, from one end of the State to the other, 
join in expression of indignation. 

The court in return insisted that it was misrepre- 
sented and misunderstood. Chief Justice W. H. Beatty 
essayed the task of writing an explanation of the 
ruling, that "the man on the street" might understand. 

The Chief Justice's article appeared in the Sacra- 
mento Bee of April 29, 1908. 350 Again was the omis- 
sion from the indictment of the fact that Schmitz was 
Mayor and Ruef a boss, emphasized. 351 And again, it 

350 The Bee prefaced the Chief Justice's article with the fol- 
lowing: statement: "The decision of the Supreme Court of Cali- 
fornia in the case of Eugene Schmitz is one not only of State hut 
even of national importance. It has been the fruitful topic of varied 
comment throughout the Union. And yet, after all the discussion, 
there remains a prevailing ignorance as to WHAT WAS DE- 
CIDED; and even among those laymen who had a fair idea upon 
that point, there is certainly little if any knowledge as to WHY 
IT WAS SO DECIDED. 

"Having a very high idea of the granitic probity of Chief Jus- 
tice Beatty of the Supreme Court, and believing it to be the duty 
of that Court to answer when citizens respectfully ask for light, 
the editor of this paper on March 31st last wrote to Chief Justice 
Beatty and asked him to publicly explain just what the Court had 
decided and just why it had so decided; to explain it so that the 
man in the street might easily understand. In that quite lengthy 
letter to the Chief Justice, the editor of The Bee wrote: 

" 'The ignorance of the general public as to what was decided 
and exactly why it was decided has undoubtedly given rise to 
considerable of a public suspicion that all is not as it should be — 
that injustice has triumphed where justice should have prevailed — 
that the good work of almost two years has been practically wiped 
out by a judicial obeisance to technicalities — that the guilty have 
been saved by the interposition of a judicial hand that could with 
more propriety and equally as much regard for the law have 
turned the scales to record the verdict of the highest tribunal on 
the side of good government.' 

"Justice Beatty answers the questions at length, but with such 
clearness that the 'man in the street' can understand. His ex- 
planation should be read by everybody, so that hereafter those 
who discuss the matter can do so with a full and thorough under- 
standing of exactly what the Supreme Court decided in the Schmitz 
case, and exactly why it considered it had so to decide." 

351 "I repeat," said the Chief Justice in his Bee article, "that 
the only question presented for decision was the question of 
statutory construction here stated, for it was never seriously con- 
tended before the Supreme Court by the Attorney General, or by 
the District Attorney of San Francisco, or by any of his assistants 
or deputies, or by the learned counsel, whose names are signed 
to the petition for a rehearing, that the indictment did allege a 



Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 329 

may be added, did the stupid man on the street fail to 
understand. In fact, disapproval of the decision con- 
tinued. Heney attacked it respectfully in tone, but 
with sharp criticism. 352 

James M. Kerr, 353 in his Cyclopedia Penal Code of 

threat to do an unlawful injury of the character indicated. What 
it did allege on this point, and all that it alleged, was that one 
E. E. Schmitz (without showing that he was Mayor of the city, 
or that he had any official or other influence over the Board of 
Police Commissioners greater than, or different from, that of the 
humblest private citizen), and one Abraham Ruef (without show- 
ing that he had any such power or influence) had told certain 
keepers of a restaurant that they could, and had threatened that 
they would, prevent them from obtaining a renewal of their 
license to sell liquors, etc. The indictment, in other words, had 
no more force in legal contemplation than if it had been directed 
against Jack Stiles and Richard Noakes, for though the facts that 
Schmitz was Mayor and Ruef the political boss of the city may 
have been as notorious in San Francisco as the fire or earthquake, 
no lawyer would contend for a moment that they were facts of 
which a court could take judicial notice in passing upon the suffi- 
ciency of the indictment." 

352 Heney's reply to Chief Justice Beatty was published in The 
Sacramento Bee. Section 961 of the California Penal Code ex- 
pressly provides that no fact of which a court may take judi- 
cial notice, need be alleged in any indictment. The Codes enu- 
merate certain matters of which the courts are required to take 
judicial notice. Among the matters are "State offices and their 
incumbents." The Political Code defines who are "State officers," 
and among them are included "Mayors of Cities." Heney, in his 
reply, held Chief Justice Beatty and the court to be wrong, even 
on the face of the statute. No lawyer in the State attempted to 
answer Heney's reply, although many of them would have been 
glad to have earned recognition from the Supreme Court by 
doing so. 

353 James M. Kerr is author of Kerr's Califox'nia Cyclopedic 
Codes. These works are accepted as standards throughout the 
country. 

"It is thought," says Kerr in California Cyclopedic Codes for 
1908, "that . . . the [Schmitz] case cannot be safely relied upon 
as an authority outside of California. It is a flagrant violation of 
the spirit if not the letter of Section 4 ante, and the old rule that 
it is the duty of the court, where it is possible, so to construe the 
statute as to uphold the indictment and promote justice, instead 
of effecting a miscarriage of justice. Several things occur in con- 
nection with a consideration of the foregoing quotation from the 
Supreme Court. 

"1. If an indictment can lawfully be upheld, the court, as the 
judicial voice of the State, is bound so to uphold it. It is not the 
province of the court to seek some strained view of the law by 
which an indictment of one accused of crime can be quashed. 

"2. The construction of the code provision on extortion is to 
be made, not technically, but according to the fair import of its 
terms, with a view to its object and to promote justice. 

"3. It is not charged, and the statute does not require it to be 



330 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 

California, published in 1908, declared in effect that in 
the Schmitz decision the Supreme Court of California 
formulated bad law and advocated bad pleading. 

As for Ruef's position as a political boss, Kerr con- 
tended, it was merely a matter of evidence, and not a 
matter to be pleaded. "The Supreme Court," concludes 
the law writer, "seems to lose sight of the fact that the 
crime of extortion in this State is not confined to per- 
sons in office and exercising official influence." 

Dean John H. Wigmore of the Northwestern Uni- 
versity School of Law, and author of the standard 
work, Wigmore on Evidence, in a crushing criticism of 



charged, that the threat was made by Schmitz, acting in his offi- 
cial capacity. The crime of extortion, under our statute, is not 
the old common-law crime of extortion, which could be committed 
only by an official acting in his official capacity. Under our statute 
it is immaterial whether Schmitz held any official position, or 
whether Schmitz and Ruef had any power or influence to carry out 
the threat; the only thing to be considered is, Did the accused 
extort money by means of a threat? Official position or power to 
carry out the threat is neither material nor proper. 

"4. It is entirely immaterial by what means Schmitz and Ruef 
intended to accomplish their threat to have the liquor license with- 
held; whether by fair persuasion of the Board of Supervisors, or 
by menace, duress, fraud, or undue influence. The crime charged 
did not consist in the dealings with the Board of Supervisors, but 
in the threat made to the French restaurateurs, by means of which 
the fears of the latter were aroused, and were forced to pay to 
Schmitz and Ruef money to which the latter were not entitled, as 
a means of preventing Schmitz and Ruef from carrying out the 
tbreat. To require the indictment to contain an allegation of the 
means intended to be used by Schmitz and Ruef to accomplish their 
unlawful purpose — the means to be used with, or to influence, or 
to menace, or duress, or fraud in dealing with, the Board of Super- 
visors — is indubitably bad law and bad pleading. 

"5. The declaration that the case 'is not one which is sufficient 
to chai-ge an offense in the language of the statute defining it,' 
made by the court, needs some reason and good authorities to make 
it good law outside of this State, and also in this State under the 
system of criminal pleading provided for by the code — which should 
be the law by which criminal pleading is to be measured. 

"6. It does not seem to have been suggested to the court, and 
it does not seem to have occurred to the learned judges thereof, 
that the trial court was required to take judicial notice of the head 
of department of a co-ordinate department of the government of 
the City and County of San Francisco, and to take judicial notice 
of the fact that Schmitz was at least de facto Mayor. See Kerr's 
Cyc. Code Civ. Proc, Sec. 1875, Subd. 5. 

"7. The position and practical control of Ruef, as the 'political 



Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 331 

the decision and the various documents in the case, 
charged the Chief Justice with being "plainly incon- 
sistent." 

"The truth is," said Dean Wigmore, "that the 
learned Chief Justice in endeavoring to support his 
decision weaves a logical web and then entangles him- 
self in it." 354 The moral of the Schmitz decision is, 



boss' of San Francisco (a position unrecognized by law), and his 
undue influence over the Board of Supervisors (the exercise of 
which is contrary to public policy), was merely matter of evidence, 
and not a matter to be pleaded; the only thing that is important 
is, Was the threat made? and did the defendants, Schmitz and 
Ruef, through such threat, extort money, and by means of the fear 
raised thereby? If they did, it is utterly immaterial whether 
Schmitz was Mayor, or Ruef was a 'political boss,' and had or had 
not any influence with the Board of Supervisors. The Supreme 
Court seems to lose sight of the fact that the crime of extortion 
in this State is not confined to persons in office, and exercising 
official influence. 

"8. A threat to do a lawful act, if made for the purpose of 
putting a person in fear, and thereby securing money or property 
which the person was not in law entitled to have and receive, ren- 
ders such person guilty of extortion, under the weight of decision 
and the better doctrine; and taking the case in that view, the in- 
dictment is amply sufficient, and should have been upheld by the 
court. The case of Boyson vs. Thorn, 98 Cal., 578; 33 Pac. Rep., 492, 
has no application, and its citation by the court only tends to befog 
the issue." 

354 Dean Wigmore's criticism of the decisions in the Schmitz 
case, and of the articles written in defense of them was as fol- 
lows: "I have read the letter of Mr. Heney, and the letter of the 
Chief Justice, and have re-read the opinion of the Court in People 
vs. Schmitz, 94 Pac. Rep. 419. The Chief Justice's letter and Mr. 
Heney's reply turn largely on the legal rule of judicial notice. 
The learned Chief Justice finds himself iron-bound by the rules 
of that subject. But the whole spirit of the rules is misconceived 
by him. Their essential and sole purpose is to relieve the party 
from proof, — that is, from proof of facts which are so notorious 
as not to need proof. When a party has not averred or evidenced 
a fact which later turns out, in the Supreme Court's opinion, to 
be vital, the rule of judicial notice helps out the judge by permit- 
ting him to take the fact as true, where it is one so notorious that 
evidence of it would have been superfluous. Now these helping 
rules are not intended to bind him, but the contrary, i. e., to 
make him free to take the fact as proved where he knows the 
proof was not needed. Moreover, it follows that, since these rules 
cannot foresee every case that new times and new conditions 
will create, they can always receive new applications. The prece- 
dents of former judges, in noticing specific facts, do not restrict 
present judges from noticing new facts, provided only that the new 
fact is notorious to all the community. For example, the unques- 
tioned election of William H. Taft as President of the United 



332 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 

Dean Wigmore concludes, "that our profession must 
be educated out of such vicious habits of thought." 

The extravagance of the criticism of the decision 
was more than equaled by the claims made by the oppo- 
sition to the prosecution, of its effect upon the status 
of Schmitz and Ruef. 

"Schmitz," said a writer in The Chronicle, "is now 



States is notorious; but no man named William H. Taft has ever 
been elected President, and no judicial precedent has noticed the 
fact. But no court would hesitate to notice this new notorious 
fact. 

"If, then, a man named Schmitz was notoriously Mayor of San 
Francisco and a man named Ruef was notoriously its political 
boss, at the time in question, that is all that any court needs; 
and the doctrine of judicial notice gives it all the liberty it needs. 
It is conceivable that a trial judge might sometimes hesitate in 
applying this doctrine of notoriety, because the trial court might 
fear that the Supreme Court would not perceive the notoriety. 
But there never need be any such hesitation in a Supreme Court, 
if that court does see the notoriety. 

"And this is just where the learned Chief Justice is to be 
criticised. He does not for a moment ask or answer the question, 
'Did we actually, as men and officers, believe these facts to be 
notoriously so?' but refers to certain mechanical rules, external to 
his mind. What that Supreme Court should have done was to 
decide whether they under the circumstances did actually believe 
the facts about the status of Schmitz and Ruef to be notorious, 
in not so doing, they erred against the whole spirit and principle 
of judicial notice. 

"And Mr. Heney's demonstration that there is nothing in the 
codes to forbid them is complete; for, of course, the Code of Pro- 
cedure, in telling them (Section 1875) that 'the courts take judi- 
cial notice of the following facts,' simply gave them a liberty of 
belief as to those specified facts, and did not take away their lib- 
erty as to other unspecified facts. 

"But there is a deeper error than this in the learned Chief 
Justice's letter, and in the court's opinion. The letter says: 'If 
by means of these allegations or otherwise it had been made to 
appear that the defendants had caused the applicants to believe 
that they could and would influence the Police Commissioners to 
reject their application regardless of its merits I have never 
doubted that the indictment would have been sufficient.' He stakes 
his decision on this point. The point is that, in determining the 
fear caused by the threat, which constituted extortion, the belief 
of the restaurant-keeper as to Schmitz's and Ruef's power, and 
not their actual power, was the essential thing. If that is so, then 
of what consequence was it whether one or the other was Mayor 
or boss? And of what consequence was it whether those facts 
were averred or judicially noticed. None at all. The indictment 
alleged that the threats were made to use influence or power over 
the Commissioners, and that their purpose was to obtain money 
by means of (i. e., through fear of) such threats. Obviously, then, 
the actual power or influence was immaterial; and the belief of 



Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 333 

thoroughly exonerated of the charge of having squeezed 
money from Malfanti, the French-restaurant man." 

However this may have been, the practical result 
of the decision was that both Schmitz and Ruef, with 

the restaurant-keeper, the only material fact, was a question of 
the evidence on the trial, and not of the legal sufficiency of the 
indictment. All the lucubrations about judicial notice were there- 
fore beside the point. 

"The inconsistency of the learned Chief Justice, in thus taking 
as essential the actual status of Schmitz and Ruef, is further seen 
in his next paragraph. There he declares 'it could not be assumed 
that such private persons could prevent the issuance of the license 
otherwise than by adducing good reasons.' But why does he 
assume that, on the contrary, a threat by a Mayor or a boss 
could prevent the issuance of the license otherwise than by ad- 
ducing good reasons? He says that if it had appeared that the 
threats were made by a Mayor and a boss, then this would have 
sufficed, because, in his own words, their influence to reject the 
application would have been used 'regardless of its merits.' See 
what this means. Suppose that two persons, a Mayor and a pri- 
vate citizen, tell a restaurant-keeper that they will do all they 
can to induce a Commissioner to revoke the license unless money 
is paid; for. one of these persons, the learned Chief Justice immedi- 
ately assumes that he can and will do this 'regardless of its 
merits'; for the other he says 'it cannot be assumed.' Why not 
for one as much or as little as the other? He does not say 
that the private person could not possibly succeed in influencing 
the Commissioner corruptly — he merely says that 'it cannot be 
assumed.' On the other hand, why assume it for the Mayor? 
Surely a Mayor might fail in trying to influence an honest Com- 
missioner by a corrupt threat to remove him. In short, either 
assume that on the facts of the trial a private person might have 
power to influence corruptly the license; in which case an allega- 
tion of his Mayoralty would be superfluous. Or else refuse to 
assume that a Mayor, merely as such, could and would inevitably 
influence a Commissioner corruptly; in which case the mere alle- 
gation of his being Mayor would not be enough, and judicial notice 
would not cure. But the Chief Justice says it would be enough! 
He is plainly inconsistent. 

"The truth is that the learned Chief Justice, in endeavoring to 
support his decision, weaves a logical web, and then entangles 
himself in it. 

"Such disputations were the life of scholarship and of the law 
six hundrd years ago. They are out of place today. There are 
enough rules of law to sustain them, if the court wants to do so. 
And there are enough rules of law to brush them away, if the 
court wants to do that. 

"All the rules in the world will not get us substantial justice 
if the judges have not the correct living moral attitude toward 
substantial justice. 

"We do not doubt that there are dozens of other Supreme Jus- 
tices who would decide, and are today deciding, in obscure cases, 
just such points in just the same way as the California case. And 
we do not doubt there are hundreds of lawyers whose professional 
habit of mind would make them decide just that way if they were 
elevated to the bench tomorrow in place of those other anachro- 
nistic jurists who are now there. The moral is that our profession 



334 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 

no convictions against them, by furnishing bonds in the 
bribery cases, were able to walk out of prison. 

Schmitz did not return as a prisoner. Ruef enjoyed 
his liberty until November, 1908. 



must be educated out of such vicious habits of thought. One way 
to do this is to let the newer ideas be dinned into their professional 
consciousness by public criticism and private conversation. 

"The Schmitz-Ruef case will at least have been an ill-wind 
blowing good to somebody if it helps to achieve that result. 

"December 7, 1908. JOHN H. WIGMORE." 



CHAPTER XXIII. 
The Defense Becomes Arrogant. 

The prosecution's reverses in the Appellate and the 
Supreme Courts were followed by startling changes of 
policy on the part of the defendants. 

The officials of public service corporations, who by 
every technical device within the ingenuity of the best 
legal talent that could be purchased, had for months 
resisted trial, suddenly became clamorous for their 
trials to begin. Abe Ruef, who had been counted, by 
the public at least, as friendly to the prosecution, openly 
broke with the District Attorney and his associates. 

President Calhoun of the United Railroads, who 
had been in the East, returned to San Francisco de- 
manding trial. The San Francisco Examiner, now 
openly opposing the prosecution, announced this new 
move to be a bomb-shell thrown in the prosecution's 
camp. Nevertheless, The Examiner could not entirely 
conceal the astonishment caused by the defense's new 
policy. 

"Just what has brought about this change in Cal- 
houn's attitude," said the Examiner in its issue of 
January 28, 1908, "was not explained yesterday. Tac- 
tics of evasion, motions of obstruction, and every other 
artifice known to legal legerdemain to stay proceed- 
ings have heretofore been the accepted etiquette of the 
graft defendants, and conspicuously that of Patrick 
Calhoun." 



336 The Defense Becomes Arrogant 

The Call, supporting the prosecution, boldly charged 
that the graft defendants were in treaty with Ruef. 356 
And this view the District Attorney's office was finally 
forced to accept. 

No sooner had the decision of the Appellate Court 
been made public than Ruef clamored for dismissal of 
the extortion charge to which he had plead guilty, but 
which the higher court had decided in the Schmitz case 
did not constitute a public offense. In this Ruef was 
backed -by Rabbis Nieto and Kaplan. 

Ruef, after the Schmitz-Ruef officials had been 
swept out of office, had been confined in the county 
jail. From the day of his jail imprisonment the two 



356 When Calhoun returned to San Francisco demanding imme- 
diate trial, the Examiner announced that he "threw a bombshell 
into the camp of the prosecution." The Call, however, dealt with 
the incident as follows: 

"Patrick Calhoun has come back in a hurry, shouting for an 
immediate trial. He is certain that he has the prosecution on the 
hip. His men are in treaty with Ruef. His organs in the press, 
the Examiner, the Chronicle and the gutter weeklies, begin to see 
Ruef in a wholly new light. Three weeks ago Ruef was the vilest 
criminal. No immunity for him. Indeed, immunity, in the lexicon 
of the Calhoun press, was then a Worse crime than bribery or 
graft. It is very different now that the new alliance between Ruef 
and the bribe givers is in process of negotiation. Ruef has at once 
become the persecuted sufferer, the victim of a heartless cabal, 
pushing one more unfortunate to his ruin and positively 'rushing' 
him to trial with indecent haste, with no lawyers but Henry Ach 
to hire. It is too bad. 

"Why this astonishing and sudden change of front? It is sim- 
ply that Calhoun has made up his mind that this is the time for 
grafters and boodlers and bribe givers to stand together. He has 
persuaded himself that the prosecution is dazed by the extraordi- 
nary decision of the Court of Appeals, and that the same has put 
Ruef in a receptive mood for a treaty of alliance, offensive and 
defensive, among all varieties of boodlers, franchise grabbers, bribe 
givers and bribe takers. Calhoun knows that Ruef on trial or 
before trial is a very different person from Ruef after conviction. 
He wants to keep Ruef in his present state of mind. Of course, 
he knows that he can not trust Ruef. No man who has had deal- 
ings with the shifty boss knows on what side he will turn up next. 
At present Ruef lends a responsive ear to Calhoun's overtures. 
Consultations are held without disguise between Calhoun's lawyers 
and Ruef. It is time for Ruef and Calhoun to stand together. 
The association is suggestive but natural." 



The Defense Becomes Arrogant 337 

Rabbis besought the District Attorney day and night 857 
not to force the broken boss to remain behind the 
bars. 358 

Langdon, not having decided at the time to appeal 
from the Appellate Court decision to the Supreme Court, 
finally yielded to the importunities of the two clergy- 
men and stated to Judge Dunne that Ruef wanted to 
make a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty in the 
extortion case. Judge Dunne replied that he would not 
consider such motion. 359 

This closed the incident so far as dismissal of the 
case before the Supreme Court could pass upon it, was 
concerned. But it did not stop Ruefs insistence that 
not only should he be allowed to withdraw his plea 
of guilty, but that he be given complete immunity from 
prosecution of all the charges against him. 

Langdon, even before he had spoken to Judge 
Dunne about permitting Ruef to withdraw his plea, had 
become convinced, as Heney had become convinced long 
before, that Ruef was not playing fair with the prose- 
cution. Ruef, when confronted with charges of holding 



357 The graft prisoners unquestionably suffefed greatly from 
their confinement. 

"No matter," said Ruef, in an interview printed in The Exam- 
iner January 11, 1908, "how much effort is made, the place cannot 
be kept clean. Filth accumulates and no running water has been 
provided. The gases from the drain pipes permeate the cells and 
are always present. No prisoner can keep himself clean, and it is 
no wonder that clothing and everything is uncleanly." 

Schmitz, long of body, complained that he needed a long cell. 
"I would like a longer cell," he is reported as saying. "My legs 
are too long and I cannot stretch them out. The hole is beastly 
and no place for a clean man." 

Louis Glass declared that he would be dead in a few days if not 
permitted to remain outside his cell. 

358 See affidavit filed by District Attorney Langdon in The 
People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823. 

359 See affidavits filed by District Attorney Langdon, and by 
Judge Dunne, in the case of Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823. 



338 The Defense Becomes Arrogant 

back evidence, shifted and evaded, until Langdon, los- 
ing patience, charged him with falsehood. 

About the middle of January, evidence came into 
Langdon's possession 360 which convinced him beyond a 
shadow of a doubt that Ruef, instead of observing the 
immunity contract, was, as a matter of fact, dealing 
with and assisting his co-defendants, advising them of 
every move. 

Langdon 361 at once called Ruef before him and 
notified him that the immunity contract was canceled. 362 

The abrogation of the immunity contract brought 
open break between Ruef and the prosecution. Ruef 

3C0 Lang-don does not state in his affidavit what this evidence 
was. But at the trial of Ruef for offerng - bribes to Jennings Phil- 
lips to grant the Parkside Railroad franchise, former Supervisor 
Wilson testified that at the first Ford trial Ruef had asked him to 
bury his memory of the money transactions and discussions with 
Ruef. Ruef at the time was pretending to be assisting the Prose- 
cution in conformity with the terms of his immunity contract. 

36i District Attorney Langdon, in an affidavit filed in the case 
of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823, states his atti- 
tude toward Ruef. Mr. Langdon says: 

"Affiant further avers and declares that if affiant believed that 
the defendant Ruef had fully and fairly performed his part of the 
agreement, and had honestly rendered such service to the State 
as would have entitled him to the consideration set forth in the 
immunity contract, this affiant would ' have moved in open court 
to dismiss the indictments against defendant Ruef, and if said 
motion were denied and affiant was directed by the Court or any 
other official to proceed with the trial of said defendant, this affiant 
would have declined to do so, and after exhausting every resource 
at his command to carry out the terms and conditions of said im- 
munity agreement, would have resigned his official position of Dis- 
trict Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, rather 
than prosecute the defendant Ruef. 

"This affiant avers that it was only when he became convinced 
that the defendant Ruef was still traitorous to the State he had 
debauched, and whose laws he had defied, and that instead of 
trying to make reparation for the wrong he had done, was endeav- 
oring not only to save himself from the punishment he so richly 
deserved, but also was endeavoring to make certain the escape 
from punishment of his co-defendants, that affiant determined the 
immunity contract to have been broken by Ruef, and no longer in 
force and effect." 

362 The Examiner in its issue of January 19, 1908, stated that 
the abrogation of the immunity contract, "means among other 
things that Ruef will now have aligned in his defense, the massed 
influence of interests represented by the prosecution to command 
$600,000,000 in wealth." 



The Defense Becomes Arrogant 339 

set up claim that under his immunity contract all the 
graft cases were to be dismissed against him, including 
that under which he had plead guilty to extortion. He 
insisted that he had lived up to his part of the agree- 
ment and charged that the prosecution was breaking 
faith. 

In this position, Ruef was backed up by Rabbis 
Kaplan and Nieto, who for months had been clamor- 
ously active in his behalf. Indeed, long before the open 
breach had come, so persistent had the Rabbis become 
in their insistence that Ruef be released, that Heney 
had found it necessary to request Kaplan to remain 
away from his office. 363 When Ruef finally broke with 
the prosecution, the two Rabbis were to the fore back- 
ing up his contention that the prosecution was not 
keeping faith with him. 364 

Kaplan soon after filed an affidavit setting forth that 
under the agreement with the prosecution, Ruef was to 

363 Heney, in an, affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. 
Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823, states that he finally said to Kap- 
lan, "You only annoy and irritate me by coming here, Doctor, and 
I wish you would stay away. I don't want to get mad at you, 
because I respect you and am satisfied that you are sincere, but 
Ruef is making a fool of you, and I have wasted more time than 
I can spare in talking with you about these things. Tou will do 
me a great favor if you will stay away from my office." 

In spite of this suggestion, Kaplan, a few days later, called 
Heney up on the telephone. Of the incident, Heney says in his 
affidavit: "A few days later, however, he called me on the tele- 
phone. I was at my office at the time, and do not know where he 
was. He said over the telephone in substance, 'Mr. Heney, I don't 
like to trouble you any more, but I had a talk with Mr. Burns and 
I have since had another talk with Mr. Ruef, and I am sure that 
Mr. Ruef's testimony will now satisfy you. He says that when he 
is on the witness stand and you ask him' — I interrupted him at 
about this point and said in a very severe tone of voice, 'Dr. Kap- 
lan, I don't want you talking such stuff to me over the phone, or 
anywhere else. I have asked you not to talk, to me about this 
matter any more and not to come to my office, and I will now have 
to ask you not to call me any more on the telephone. I don't want 
to hear anything more about Ruef's testimony." 

364 See affidavits filed by Rabbis Nieto and Kaplan in the case 
of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al. 



34-0 The Defense Becomes Arrogant 

have had complete immunity, and be allowed to with- 
draw his plea of guilty in the extortion case. Later 
on, Nieto, "Ruef's diplomatic middle man," as he was 
called, filed an affidavit to the same effect. Ruef, on his 
part, filed a voluminous affidavit, purporting to cover 
all his transactions with the prosecution, in which he 
not only set up the claim that he was to have been 
given complete immunity but alleged that Langdon, 
Heney and Burns, were guilty of subornation of per- 
jury in having endeavored to get him to swear falsely 
against Schmitz and Ford. 

Rabbis Kaplan and Nieto, in their affidavits gave 
versions of the meetings with Judges Dunne and Law- 
lor, when the Judges stated their confidence in the Dis- 
trict Attorney and his assistants, which differed from 
the accounts contained in the affidavit of Heney and 
the judges. 365 This brought the trial judges as well 
as the assistant prosecuting attorney into the contro- 
versy. 

The members of the Grand Jury that had indicted 
the graft defendants had already had their trials in 
open court; 366 petit jurors and witnesses had, in effect, 
been on trial also. And now District Attorney and trial 
judges were placed on their defense. 367 

Other graft defendants joined in the upholding of 

3C5 See Chapter XV. 

366 See Chapter XV. 

367 A letter from W. H. Payson, a leader of the San Francisco 
bar, to Rabbi Nieto fairly expressed the public attitude on the 
Rabbi's stand. Mr. Payson's letter read: "Rabbi Jacob Nieto. 
Dear Sir: — As you have written a letter to the public explaining 
your connection with the Ruef case, it may not be out of place 
for one of the public to reply. 

"When Mr. Ruef made his apparently frank statement admit- 
ting- that he had betrayed his city into the hands of the spoilers, 



The Defense Becomes Arrogant 341 

Ruef and the denunciation of the prosecution. Adverse 
newspapers joined in the cry of unfairness and hinted 

but promised to do all in his power to right the wrong, whatever 
the consequences might be to himself, the public believed him and 
believed that he was going to do right because it was right and 
for his own self-respect, and not at the price of saving his own 
skin. Acting on this assumption many of us congratulated Mr. 
Ruef and assured him that he had gone far toward recovering his 
position in the public esteem. It now turns out from your letter 
of explanation that Mr. Ruef's public statement of his high and 
noble purpose was a mockery and hollow sham; that he had 
rejected any proposition to act the man, but like his contemptible 
associates, sought only to escape his just deserts. 

"We recognize the unfortunate necessity the prosecution was 
under of granting immunity in order to secure the evidence to 
convict the greater felons, but surely the officers of the law were 
fully qualified to attend to that miserable business. If you could 
have influenced Mr. Ruef to stand on the higher plane of honor 
and decency of which you are the advocate and representative, 
you would indeed have done a great public service and you might 
have saved him for better things, but it would seem that your 
services were directed chiefly to saving him from the just penalty 
of his crimes and that the arrangement with him was on the same 
sordid level as the immunity contracts with the Supervisors, for 
which no ministerial services were necessary. From your position 
and religious heritage we had a right to expect that your dis- 
tinguished services would have been put to a better use. I am 
still sufficiently credulous as to believe that with proper influence 
Mr. Ruef might have been induced to take the course we were 
led to believe he had taken. 

"Your letter even leaves it to be inferred that Mr. Ruef is jus- 
tified in his present attitude, and that the judges, who, from your 
statement, were ready to go to the extreme of mercy and consider- 
ation, are now to be censured for not carrying out an immunity 
contract which has been flagrantly broken by the other party to it. 

"The serious features of this unfortunate situation are not that 
officials should receive bribes, or that men of wealth and standing 
should bribe them, or that attorneys of reputation should engineer 
the filth}'' operation, but that not one of the army of bribed and 
bribers has been found of sufficient manliness or moral stamina 
to make a frank statement of the facts and give aid in the cause 
of justice, and that so many people are willing to shield the influ- 
ential criminals for commercial motives, and that there is so low 
a state of public morals as to make these things possible. 

"The great body of the public is heart and soul back of this 
prosecution, beca,use we believe it is an honest attempt, not merely 
to convict certain criminals, but to elevate the standard of public 
morality, and whatever may be the outcome and even though, 
through successive miscarriages of justice, every guilty man escape 
his legal punishment, the graft prosecution has, nevertheless, suc- 
ceeded beyond our fondest hopes; nine-tenths of its work has been 
accomplished, and in the teeth of the most determined and des- 
perate opposition perhaps ever known. 

"Be assured that every guilty man will be convicted at the bar 

of public opinion, and from that conviction there will be no appeal 

and no escape: they will be known and branded for life, each and 

every one. The public is not a party to the immunity contracts. 

"Very truly yours, 

"W. H. PAYSON. 

"San Francisco, January 30, 1908." 



342 The Defense Becomes Arrogant 

at worse. The story became current that no appeal 
would be made from the Appellate Court's decision in 
the Schmitz case to the Supreme Court. Another story 
had it that the prosecution was breaking down, that the 
situation had become so complicated that no other trials 
could be had. 368 

On the other hand, the outcry did not in the least 
shake the faith of the citizens who were insisting upon 
the crushing out of corruption at the State's metropolis. 
Colonel Harris Weinstock, one of the largest merchants 
of the State, in a ringing address condemned the efforts 
made to discredit the prosecution. 369 The same position 



368 District Attorney Langdon's statement in reply to these 
criticisms was as follows: "I have no answer at this time to make 
to the statements given out by Patrick Calhoun and made in be- 
half of other defendants in the graft cases with the intention of 
discrediting the prosecution and attempting to lead the public to 
believe that we have acted unfairly in the conduct of these cases. 
The time will come when such charges will be answered, but they 
will be answered only as events shall dirct. 

"Nothing that has occurred within the past few weeks has in 
any way complicated the situation as far as the prosecution is con- 
cerned or has tended to weaken our position. The original plans 
of the prosecution are to be carried out just as we have always 
intended to carry them out. The Ruef case will be tried immedi- 
ately, and every other defendant under indictment will be brought 
to trial just as quickly as the courts are able to dispose of the 
cases. We shall not falter in our duty. I can promise that while 
the present District Attorney is in office this battle will be fought 
out to the end of the last case. 

"The fact is that at the present time we have the tactical 
advantage over all the defendants, who have allied their interests 
for mutual protection. They know we have this advantage and 
that is why they are shouting so loudly from the housetops. We 
do not answer the attacks that are made because we are trying 
law cases and our every energy is bent to the prosecution of those 
cases. We are entirely satisfied, however, with the position in 
which we stand at this time and are prepared to fight our battles 
in the courts to a finish." 

369 The following are extracts taken from Mr. Weinstock's 
address: 

"After all, the saddest thing is to find men who are rated as 
decent, law-abiding, intelligent, presumably high minded and moral, 
condoning the sins of the bribe givers and deploring their indict- 
ment and prosecution. 

"Both the commercial and political bribe givers committed seri- 
ous crimes, but by far the more serious was the crime of corrupt- 
ing public officials, because the tendency of this crime is to under- 



The Defense Becomes Arrogant 343 

was taken in pulpit, club room and street discussion. 
From all parts of the State resolutions and memorials 
were sent the prosecution approving and upholding its 
work. 370 And doggedly the prosecution proceeded to 
justify the expressions of confidence in its singleness 
of purpose and in its ability to cope with the tremen- 
dous odds brought against it. 

The immediate indictments about which the contro- 
versy raised by Ruef's claim for immunity centered 
were those in the United Railroad cases. The prose- 
cution accordingly went before the Grand Jury then 
sitting — the Oliver Grand Jury which had brought the 
original indictments had long since adjourned — and 
secured three indictments against Ruef, Calhoun and 
Ford for the bribery of three Supervisors, Furey, Nich- 
olas and Coleman. 

In these indictments every technical error which 
the ingenuity of the defense had brought out was 

mine the very foundation of the State, thus leading to the ulti- 
mate destruction of democracy. 

"If the spirit of the respectables, fighting and condemning the 
graft prosecution, is to become the common spirit, then must we 
bid farewell to civic virtue, farewell to public morality, farewell 
to good government and in time farewell to our republican institu- 
tions and to civic liberty." 

370 A very good example of this is shown in a memorial from 
Sonoma. The memorial read as follows: 

"Sonoma, Cal., March 18, 1908. To William H. Langdon, Fran- 
cis J. Heney, Rudolph Spreckels and others engaged in the graft 
prosecution in San Francisco. Gentlemen: It appearing that a 
portion of the press of this State is engaged in belittling the efforts 
of those engaged in the prosecution of the graft cases in San 
Francisco, and is endeavoring to impute improper and unjust mo- 
tives to all who have such prosecution in charge; and we realizing 
that it is the duty of all honest people everywhere to uphold the 
hands of the prosecution, and to encourage them to proceed in all 
lawful ways to continue in their efforts to bring all law breakers 
to justice, 

"We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Sonoma and 
vicinity, mindful of the good work you are all doing, wish to show 
our appreciation of your efforts, and encourage you in continuing 
to pursue the course you have marked out, to the end that all 
law breakers shall be punished and the majesty of the law vindi- 
cated." 



344 The Defense Becomes Arrogant 

eliminated. The new indictments were not secured 
because the prosecution regarded the objections as hav- 
ing merit, but that the District Attorney's office might 
be prepared to meet any emergency which might arise. 371 
The next step was to bring Ruef to trial. The 
prosecution selected the indictment under which Ruef 
had been brought to bar for offering a bribe to Super- 
visor Jennings Phillips to vote for the Parkside street 
railroad franchise. 372 

371 Heney, in a published statement regarding these indict- 
ments, said: "We do not consider for a minute that there is a 
particle of merit to any of the claims made by the defendants that 
the former indictments were defectively drawn in any detail. It 
is wise, however, to be prepared for anything that might happen 
at any subsequent time, and so the present true bills have been 
found. These indictments are so drawn as to eliminate every 
technical objection that has been made by any of the defendants 
to the former indictments, and the action has been at this time so 
that the statute of limitations would not run against the crime 
charged. There is absolutely no significance to the fact that the 
name of Abbott and Mullally were omitted, except that we feel 
that the cases against the three defendants named are of far 
greater importance. Our sole purpose has been to throw an 
anchor to windward to avoid possible trouble in the future." 

372 James D. Phelan, at the mass meeting called after the 
attempted assassination of Heney, summed up the Parkside case 
tersely: "Take the Parkside case," he said. "There were some 
men who wanted a franchise which we were all willing to concede, 
but the boss said it would be advisable to pay for it. Instead of 
making a demand upon the Supervisors and an appeal to the citi- 
zens on the justice of their cause and the desirability of giving 
them the franchise, they continued their dickering with Ruef, and 
for so much money, thirty thousand dollars, I believe, he said he 
would give it to them. Then they 'doctored' their books and went 
down to the Crocker National Bank and got the money in green- 
backs, handed out to them by the teller of that institution, whose 
managers were stockholders in the Parkside, among them a gen- 
tleman who told you the other day to vote against the Hetch- 
Hetchy proposition, Mr. William H. Crocker. 

"Now, finding that they could get so easily a privilege by pay- 
ing for it, what did they do? They asked Mr. Ruef to give them 
the franchise, not on Twentieth avenue, an ungraded street, which 
they first wanted, but in Nineteenth avenue, which had been dedi- 
cated as a boulevard for the use of the people, which was sub- 
stantially paved, and which was the only avenue we had to cross 
from the park to Ingleside. He said to them that that would take 
fifteen thousand dollars more, and they said 'It's a bargain.' And 
these gentlemen who sought the least objectionable franchise, tell 
you now that they were victims, tell you now that they could not 
get their franchise any other way. They were glad because they 
were a part of the system, a part of the 'other fellows' of the 
affiliated interests. They were glad to pay their money, which was 



The Defense Becomes Arrogant 345 

Prospect of immediate trial made a different man of 
Ruef. He was at once seized with the panic which had 
come upon him when the jury had been completed to 
try him on the extortion charge. He begged for time. 
He insisted that he was without counsel. He asked for 
three weeks, a week, even two days. 373 

Then came an entirely new technical defense based 
upon the immunity contract. Ruef alleged that he had 
been deprived of his constitutional rights as a defend- 
ant, by following the set program outlined in the 
contract. But here Ruef had over-reached himself. 
He had on January 31 entered a plea of not guilty in 
the Parkside case, the case on trial. The District At- 
torney had abrogated the immunity contract thirteen 
days before, on January 18. Whatever technical advan- 
tage Ruef may have had because of the immunity con- 

a paltry sum to them, in order to perpetuate the rule of Ruef; 
that they could go to him on any other occasion to get an exten- 
sion, or a privilege or a franchise, or anything that they wanted, 
by simply paying for it. It would be the simplest form of govern- 
ment, my friends, to have somebody sitting in a place of power 
and pass out to you what you want. It would save you the expense 
of a campaign, it would save you the advertising in the news- 
papers, it would save you the cost of mailing a circular to every 
voter. It is indeed, a most economical and direct method of get- 
ting what you want from the government." 

373 The Oakland Tribune, in support of Ruef's plea for delay, 
said: "Now the question arises: Is Ruef now being prosecuted 
in good faith for the offenses alleged against him or is he being 
forced to trial without adequate preparation merely to coerce him 
into giving testimony he has repeatedly told Heney, Langdon and 
Burns would be false? Is not the summary process of law being 
invoked to compel Ruef to tell to a trial jury a different story from 
the one he related under oath to the Oliver Grand Jury? In other 
words, is not the prosecution now trying either to punish Ruef for 
refusing to commit or convict himself of perjury or intimidate him 
into assisting, as a witness under duress, Heney and Langdon to 
make good the threat they reiterated on the stump last fall that 
they would send Patrick Calhoun to State prison? 

"Admitting Ruef to be guilty of all the crimes of which he 
stands accused, is he not now being proceeded against in a crim- 
inal spirit and with a criminal intent? Having failed to get what 
they want by compounding the felonies of Ruef and his followers, 
are not the prosecution resorting to compulsion under the forms 
of law to compel the commission of perjury?" 



346 The Defense Becomes Arrogant 

tract was forfeited by his plea of not guilty after its 
annulment. 

His attorney gravely contended, however, that Ruef 
— one of the shrewdest practitioners at the San Fran- 
cisco bar — was without legal counsel when he had 
entered his plea, and that he had therefore innocently 
foregone his constitutional rights. This contention pro- 
voked a smile even from Ruef's partisans. The point 
was not urged further. 

Seeing that trial could not be warded off on techni- 
calities, Ruef endeavored to disqualify Judge Dunne, 
the trial judge. But this move proved premature. 
Judge Dunne was about to go on his vacation and Judge 
Dooling, 374 a Superior Court Judge from the interior, 
was called to sit in Judge Dunne's stead. Ruef there- 
upon proceeded to disqualify Judge Dooling. He alleged 
that Judge Dooling, as Grand President of the Native 
Sons of the Golden West, had signed an order expelling 
him (Ruef) from the order; he alleged further that 
Judge Dooling had attacked him in a speech at a ban- 
quet. 

Judge Dooling, placed on trial as Judges Lawlor 
and Dunne had been, was forced to make defense. He 
denied in affidavits that he had ever specially men- 
tioned Ruef's name in any speech, but admitted that 
he might have said that any man guilty of crime should 
be expelled from the Native Sons order. 

Ruef went to the Appellate Court for a writ of pro- 



374 Judge M. T. Dooling was at the time Superior Judge of San 
Benito, one of the smaller of the interior counties. He had, how- 
ever, already a State-wide reputation for integrity and ability. He 
left the San Benito County bench to accept the appointment of 
President Wilson as United States District Judge. 



The Defense Becomes Arrogant 347 

hibition to prevent Judge Dooling trying the case. The 
Appellate Court denied his petition. Then Ruef went 
to the Supreme Court. Here again his prayer was 
denied. Thus, protesting as vigorously as a cat pulled 
over a carpet by the tail, was Ruef for a second time 
dragged to trial. The work of securing a jury to try 
him began. 

Gradually, the jury box rilled. But before it was 
completed there occurred an incident of the prosecution 
even more startling than the sending of cash books out 
of the State, the trailing of members of the prosecu- 
tion by agents of the defense, 375 the disappearance of 
witnesses, the larceny of the prosecution's records, or 
the attempted kidnaping of Witness Lonergan and 
Editor Older. 

On the eve of taking testimony in the Ruef case an 
attempt was made to murder James L. Gallagher by 
dynamiting his residence. Gallagher was the pivotal 
witness against Ruef, as well as against Ford, then on 
trial. 

In the Ruef case, Gallagher had taken word from 
Ruef to the Supervisors that there would be $750 — 
later increased to $1000 — for each of them if they 
granted the Parkside franchise. Without Gallagher's 
testimony the case against Ruef would fall flat. 

General Ford's third trial was then in progress and 
well advanced. Here again, Gallagher was the pivotal 
witness. He had taken the trolley bribe money from 



375 Some of these trailers were arrested and forced into court. 
On one day four men, Frank Shaw, alias Harry Nelson, Harry 
Smith, alias Harry Zobler, J. R. Johnson, alias J. R. Hayes, and 
Cliff Middlemiss were placed under arrest for following Detective 
Burns. 



34$ The Defense Becomes Arrogant 

Ruef to the Supervisors. He supplied the link between 
those who had been bribed, and Ruef. His testimony 
was indispensable if Ruef and Ford — then on trial — 
were to be convicted. His testimony was equally neces- 
sary in the cases against Calhoun, Drum, in fact all 
the graft defendants, except those who had dealt directly 
with the Supervisors. 

The evening of the day following Gallagher's tes- 
timony in the Ford case, but before he appeared at the 
Ruef trial, dynamite was exploded at the front doors 
of the house in which he was residing. The dynamite 
had been placed next to the dining room. Gallagher 
was at the time living at the home of W. H. H. Schenck 
at Oakland. 

So violent was the explosion that the house, a frame 
building, was split in twain. A pillar from the porch 
was thrown 150 feet. In the building on the adjoining 
premises, every window was broken. The family had 
just completed the evening meal and a number of them 
were still seated around the table. The table was split 
from end to end. At the moment of the explosion, one 
of those in the house was showing a curious watch 
guard and had the watch in his hand. The watch 
stopped, thus fixing the exact time of the explosion, 
7:30 P. M. 

There were in the house at the time of the explo- 
sion, W. H. H. Schenck and wife, and three children, 
the youngest seven years old ; Lieutenant Guy Brown 
of the National Guard ; and Gallagher and his wife. 
Every one in the building was thrown down by the 
force of the explosion, but extraordinary to say, none 
of them was seriously injured. Gallagher and his wife 



The Defense Becomes Arrogant 349 

were in an upper room of the building. The stairway 
was demolished, and Gallagher was obliged to lower 
his wife to the ground, getting down himself the best 
way he could. 

A month later three buildings in Oakland belonging 
to Gallagher were destroyed by dynamite. Soon after 
this second explosion a young Greek, John Claudianes, 
was arrested and charged with the outrage. 

Claudianes made full confession, involving his 
brother Peter as principal. Peter Claudianes was finally 
captured at Chicago. On his return to San Francisco 
he confessed, 376 stating that he had been employed by 



376 According to Peter Claudianes' confession to Burns, he had 
been summoned from Chico to San Francisco by Felix Pauduveris 
early in March. Pauduveris told him he had a hard piece of work 
for Claudianes to do, namely, kill Gallagher, the chief witness in the 
graft prosecution. Pauduveris had told him there was $1000 apiece 
and three dollars a day for expenses in the job for them. The 
first proposition, according to Claudianes' confession, was for 
Claudianes to shoot poisoned glass into Gallagher's face by means 
of an ordinary sling-shot. But this plan was abandoned on the 
ground that Claudianes' capture would be sure to follow. A plan 
to poison Gallagher was also abandoned. Destruction by means of 
dynamite was finally decided upon. Pauduveris had taken Claudi- 
anes over to Oakland and showed him where Gallagher resided. 
After the failure of the dynamite plot, Claudianes had arranged to 
secure apartments in the same building with Gallagher and put 
poison into Gallagher's milk. Before this plot could be carried out, 
John Claudianes had confessed and Peter had become a fugitive 
from justice. 

In his confession to Burns, Peter Claudianes stated: "Paudu- 
veris said the prosecution with Heney, Langdon, Burns and Spreck- 
els had put about 50,000 men out of work. We must get rid of 
Gallagher as he is their principal witness. If he is put out of the 
way the Prosecution will end. There is about $2000 in it for us 
and about $1000 in it for your brother John. Felix Pauduveris was 
very angry because no one was killed in the explosion at the 
Schenck house. He said it was not a clean job." 

In his confession, Claudianes stated further: 

"I thought I was working for Ruef, as I knew Felix was a very 
intimate friend of his. When Felix told me I had got to shadow 
Gallagher I knew the word came from Ruef. Felix said that Ruef 
would never go across the bay, as he had them all buffaloed. Ruef 
was too smart for those fellows, Felix said, and the gang was all 
behind Ruef. The prosecution had no grudge against Gallagher, but 
it had a grudge against Ruef." 



350 The Defense Becomes Arrogant 

a Greek, one Felix Pauduveris, 377 to murder Gallagher. 
Felix Pauduveris fled the city and the police of the 
world have been unable to locate him. Peter Claudianes 
was convicted of the attempt upon Gallagher's life, was 
sentenced to prison for life, and at present writing is 
confined in San Quentin prison. 378 

Quite as extraordinary as the attempted assassina- 
tion of Gallagher was the indifference with which the 
outrage was received by the press that was supporting 
the graft defense. 379 The Chronicle condemned the 
outrage, but took occasion to denounce Gallagher. 380 



377 Pauduveris had been employed by the United Railroads as 
a "spotter." At the time of the explosion he was still in that cor- 
poration's employ. He was at the same time a political follower 
of Ruef. 

378 The attempt upon Gallagher's life led the prosecution to 
take steps to secure his testimony in a form in which it could be 
used before a trial jury in the event of Gallagher's death. Under 
the California law, testimony taken at a preliminary hearing can, 
in the event of the death or disability of a witness, be used at 
the trial of the case. After the Parkside case trial, Ruef was 
arrested on a charge of bribery and given a preliminary examina- 
tion at which Gallagher testified against him. Gallagher's testi- 
mony was thus made secure against poison or dynamite. 

379 The Examiner following the explosion printed a series of 
ridiculing cartoons picturing the dynamiting of a bird cage and 
describing at length the escape of the parrot that had occupied it. 

380 The Chronicle took advantage of the dynamite outrage to 
voice its condemnation of Gallagher. "There is," said that paper 
in its issue of April 24, "no more undesirable citizen on earth than 
the contemptible boodler James L. Gallagher, who is living on the 
profits of the shame which he brazenly flaunts in the face of man- 
kind, but the effort to discover the miscreant who dynamited the 
house where he was living should be pushed as vigorously as if 
the intended victim was the most estimable citizen of California. 
Society despises such boodlers as Gallagher, but it does not seek 
their destruction by dynamite. The dynamiter is a coward who is 
even more contemptible than a boodler. He sneaks up in the dark, 
fires his explosive and runs, because in his craven soul he dare 
not stand up and meet his enemy. The punishment of the dyna- 
miter — successful or unsuccessful — should be severe, but it should be 
solemnly inflicted after due process of law. 

"It is, of course, possible that some of the wretches with whom 
he was associated during his career of crime have taken that 
method of getting rid of his testimony, but it is not probable. 
Among those against whom he has not yet given the testimony 
which he will give are the only persons who can be conceived of 
as having a motive to get Gallagher out of the way, but no one that 



The Defense Becomes Arrogant 351 

The weekly press, however, treated the affair as some- 
thing of a joke on the confessed bribe-taker. 881 

In the face of the ridicule of the graft-defense 
press, the dynamiting of witnesses, and the continent- 
wide hunt for the dynamiters, the Ruef trial went 
steadily on. 

One incident of the beginning of the trial, because 
of the event that grew out of it, eventually proved even 
more important than the trial itself. 

During the examination of jurors, an ex-convict, 
one Morris Haas, was discovered to have been sworn 
to try the case. Heney exposed him and he was ex- 



we hear of suspects any of them of having resorted to that atro- 
cious method of defense, in which six persons besides Gallagher 
himself came near being murdered. In the absence of any conceiva- 
ble sufficient motive the dastardly act must be assumed the work of 
a wicked man gone crazy." 

381 The following from the San Francisco Argonaut of May 2, 
1908, is fairly expressive of the attitude of the San Francisco weekly 
press on the attempt on Gallagher's life: "Mr. Heney in so far as 
it lay in him to do it, 'placed' the 'crime' upon the 'minions' of 
Calhoun. The other independent and all-seeing minds of the prose- 
cution's staff fell in with this theory of the case. So far as the so- 
called graft prosecutors are concerned there is no mystery about 
the matter — the explosion in Gallagher's house was nothing less 
than an attempt to assassinate that eminent worthy for the sake 
of 'getting him out of the way.' This theory has to face several 
embarrassing considerations. In the first place, Gallagher's testi- 
mony has been given again and again, and stands as an official 
record in a half-dozen instances. Getting Gallagher out of the 
way would not, therefore, do away with his testimony. Further- 
more, there are other witnesses competent to testify to every vital 
fact in the Gallagher story. So far as the immediate case is con- 
cerned, Gallagher has already given his testimony and the effect 
of 'getting him out of the way' would be only to emphasize his 
statements. Furthermore, if there had been any wish to get Galla- 
gher out of the way there has been plenty of chances to do it any 
time this year and a half past. If assassination has been part of 
the scheme of the defense, there have been ten thousand opportuni- 
ties since the striking of that famous bargain between Spreckels 
and Gallagher inside the Presidio gate. The thing might have been 
done, too, without hazarding the lives of half a dozen women and 
children." 

In view of the inability of Mr. Langdon's successor in the Dis- 
trict Attorney's office to make effective prosecution of the graft 
cases, on the ground that Gallagher, who had left California, was 
absent from the State, and that his testimony was necessary to 
secure convictions, the Argonaut article makes interesting reading. 



352 The Defense Becomes Arrogant 

cused from service. 382 The incident, compared with 
the other tremendous happenings of the time, was of 
small importance, but it was destined to lead to the 
greatest outrage of all the history of the prosecution, 
the shooting down of Assistant District Attorney Heney 
in open court. But for the time, Haas passed out of 
the graft cases and was forgotten. 

The Ruef trial was not unlike the Ford trials. The 
courtroom was packed with detectives, agents and 
thugs employed by the various graft defendants. 383 
There was the same hesitancy on the part of witnesses. 
At one stage of the proceedings Ach, Ruef's chief of 
counsel, sneered that the State was having trouble with 
its own witness. 

"Yes," replied Heney, "The People have no wit- 
ness — no volunteer witnesses. We merely produce 
them." 

When J. E. Green, president of the Parkside Com- 
pany, who had authorized the payments to Ruef, re- 
fused to testify on the ground that he might incrim- 
inate himself, it looked as though the case was going 
against the prosecution. But Heney met this objection. 
He promptly moved the dismissal of the fourteen in- 
dictments pending against Green. 384 Ach objected, but 
the motion was granted. Green was left free to testify. 



382 Heney's exposure of Haas was unquestionably warranted and 
necessary. The incident, however, has been made subject of much 
misrepresentation and attacks upon Heney. 

383 Heney in a speech made before Mayor and Supervisors 
showed how the prosecution was harassed by thugs. 

384 See transcript in The People vs. Ruef (Parkside case) for 
dismissal of these indictments and of other indictments against 
Parkside officials. 



The Defense Becomes Arrogant 353 

Green testified how he had sent his attorney, 385 
Judge Walter C. Cope, to Ruef to find out what Ruef 
was after. Ruef wanted $50,000 to put the franchise 
through. Green testified that Ruef finally agreed to 
take $30,000, and was actually paid $15,000 on account. 

G. H. Umbsen testified to having received $30,000 
from the Parkside Company for Ruef and had paid 
Ruef $15,000, the balance being held until the deal 
should be consummated. In addition to this, the sorry 
manner 386 in which the company's books had been 
juggled to cover up the transaction was shown by wit- 
nesses connected with the Parkside Company. 

Ruef's intimation through his attorney that the 
money had been paid as a fee was offset by testimony 
that the books had been juggled to cover up the pay- 
ment to Ruef because Ruef was the political boss of 
the city, and it was believed that it would do the com- 
pany no good if the fact of his employment were known. 

Gallagher testified that he had been Ruef's repre- 
sentative on the board; that Ruef had told him that 
the Parkside franchise was to be held up and delayed; 
that later Ruef had stated that each Supervisor would 
receive $750 because of the Parkside deal; that finally, 
after the fire, Ruef had told witness that the Parkside 
people wanted the franchise in a new form, and that 
the $750 to each Supervisor would be increased to 
$1,000; that he (Gallagher) had conveyed this informa- 
tion to the Supervisors. Supervisors testified to having 
been given the information by Gallagher. 



385 For additional data regarding this case, see Chapter XIV, 
footnotes 180, 181, 198, 199, 200, 201. 

386 See footnote 199. 
12 



354 The Defense Becomes Arrogant 

Ruef offered no testimony. The jury was out forty- 
three hours. By a vote of 6 to 6 the jury failed to 
agree. Again a graft trial had ended in discouraging 
failure for the prosecution. 387 

After the disagreement of the jury in the Ruef 
Parkside case, to judge from most of the San Fran- 
cisco public prints of the time, the prosecution was 
utterly discredited in San Francisco. But there is a 
surer means of estimating public opinion — namely, by 
the votes of the people. 

Much of the graft defense's abuse and vilification 
was heaped upon Judges Lawlor and Dunne, who had 
stood firmly for enforcement of the law regardless of 
who might be affected. Judge Dunne's term as Supe- 
rior Judge was to expire in 1909. He was, at the 
November election of 1908, a candidate for re-election. 

Judge Dunne was frankly fought by the graft de- 
fense, and supported by those who approved the work 
of the prosecution. The Republican county convention 
refused to nominate him, and hissed his name. The 
Union Labor party convention received his name with 
a turmoil of hoots and jeers. A letter to the last-named 
convention from the Good Government League urging 
his nomination was thrown into the waste-paper basket. 



387 Months after, when men had been indicted for endeavoring 
to influence jurors to vote for Ruef's acquittal in the United Rail- 
roads case, Isaac Penny, who had acted as foreman of the jury 
that failed to agree in the Parkside case, in a public statement 
denounced that jury as not honest. "Had I known then," said 
Penny in an interview printed in the San Francisco Call, Septem- 
ber 30, 1908, "what I have since learned about jury tampering, I 
would have sprung a sensation in Judge Dooling's court that would 
have resulted in the haling of numerous men before the court. 
* * * I have been turning this over again and again in my mind, 
and there is but one pnswer — that jury was not an honest one." 

Later, Penny gave sensational testimony along this line in 
Judge Lawlor's court. 



The Defense Becomes Arrogant 355 

On the other hand, when given opportunity for 
expression The People gave Judge Dunne encouraging 
endorsement. The Good Government League proceeded 
to have his name put on the ballot by petition. For 
the petition 1,765 signatures were required. Over 3,000 
persons signed it the first day. The press — outside San 
Francisco — following the graft trials closely, was prac- 
tically a unit in urging Judge Dunne's return to the 
bench. 388 And in spite of the costly contest of his 
election, The People of San Francisco re-elected Judge 
Dunne. 

Thus again were the contentions of the graft de- 
fense repudiated at the polls. 

Another important endorsement of the prosecution 
came from the Board of Supervisors. The Supervisors 
provided in their annual budget $70,000 to meet the 
extraordinary expenditures because of the graft cases. 
Burns and the men who had theretofore been paid out 
of the fund controlled by Rudolph Spreckels, became 
regular municipal employees operating under the Dis- 
trict Attorney. 



388 From one end of the State to the other, Judge Dunne was 
warmly commended as a jurist and a man. "The name of Judge 
Dunne," said the Pasadena News, "stands in California honored 
among honest men because of the enemies he has made. Every 
politician and every newspaper that has defended bribery and 
sought to embarrass the graft prosecution is against Judge Dunne. 
They stocked a political convention against him. Judge Dunne's 
defeat in San Francisco would be a disgrace to that city and a 
reflection on the honor and intelligence of the people of California." 

"The corrupt corporation organs," said the Sacramento Bee, 
"and the servile journalistic tools of the predatory rich — such as 
the Argonaut, for instance — are barking in unison at the heels of 
Judge Dunne in San Francisco and declaring he is unfit to sit on 
the bench. Dunne's crime in their eyes is that he did his simple, 
plain duty in the graft prosecution cases. If he had neglected that 
duty, to tip the scales of Justice over to favor the 'higher ups,' 
the same gang, with the Argonaut in the lead, would be praising 
him to the skies as a most just judge, a righteous judge, and would 
be clamoring for his re-election." 



356 The Defense Becomes Arrogant 

The criticism of the defense had been that it was 
shameful that a privately-financed prosecution should 
be tolerated. Their cry now was at the shame of 
wasting the public funds on Burns and his staff. Ac- 
tion was instituted, through William H. Metson, to 
prevent the municipal officials paying Burns and his 
associates out of this fund. For months the salaries 
of those affected were held up. Although eventually 
the opposition to the prosecution lost in the contest, 
and the men were paid the amounts due them, the suit 
was an annoyance and a handicap. 

But in spite of the tremendous opposition which the 
graft defense was working up, the prosecution went 
steadily on with its work. Ruef was put to trial for 
offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey to vote for the 
permit giving the United Railroads its overhead trolley 
franchise. 



CHAPTER XXIV. 
Jury-Fixing Uncovered. 

From the beginning of the graft trials rumors of 
efforts to tamper with the trial jurors had been current. 
The failures of juries to agree in the face of what to 
the man on the street appeared to be conclusive evi- 
dence, lent more or less color to these reports. But 
it was not until Ruef 's trial 889 for offering a bribe in 
the over-head trolley transaction opened, that the jury- 
fixing scandal took definite shape. Then, came sensa- 
tional exposures, involving indictments and trials for 
jury-fixing which for a time over-shadowed in interest 
the graft trials themselves. 

Ruef's trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey 
to vote for the over-head trolley franchise, began Au- 



389 Of the "fixing- of juries," The Chronicle in its issue of Sep- 
tember 19, 1908, said: "Every move made in the Ruef trials gives 
moral evidence that systematic bribery of juries is being prac- 
ticed which is as convincing to the public as were the signs of 
corruption during the entire Schmitz regime, but before the ex- 
plosion. Nobody doubted then that the Mayor, the Supervisors 
and all officials appointed by Schmitz were thieves. Nobody 
doubts now that all through these graft trials there has been sys- 
tematic corruption of juries. In private conversation it is treated 
as a matter of course. Nobody, of course, could 'prove' it. Nobody 
needs legal proof to be convinced." 

Of the incident, The Call said in its issue of September 19, 
1908: "For a long time there has been every reason to believe 
that veniremen summoned to try Ruef were being bribed or 
promised bribes to vote for acquittal. The dubious character of 
Ruef's attorneys, or some of them, and their known affiliations 
were wholly consistent with this theory. Circumstances not 
amounting to absolute proof, but giving cause for strong suspicion, 
came to the surface from time to time. The jury fixers grew 
bolder with impunity, and, in fine, the pitcher went to the well 
once too often." 



358 Jury-Fixing Uncovered 

gust 27, 1908. 390 But nearly a month before, on July 
31, District Attorney Langdon had been given definite 
information that an attempt had been made to bribe 
one of the talesmen who had been called' for jury serv- 
ice at the Ruef trial. The talesman in question was 
John Martin Kelly, a real estate salesman. 

The list of prospective jurors had been made public 
in July. Late on the afternoon of July 31, Mr. Lang- 
don received a telephone message from Kelly requesting 
an interview, which was granted immediately. 

Kelly told Langdon 391 that that afternoon he had 

390 The trial had been delayed by Ruef s preliminary hearing. 
The hearing was held in order that Gallagher's testimony might 
become of record in a way that would permit of its being used at 
Ruef's trial, in the event of Gallagher's assassination. 

Ruef's attorneys by lengthy cross-examinations and other de- 
laying tactics, succeeded in dragging the case along for sixty-nine 
days. Further delays were caused by the usual efforts made to 
disqualify Judge Lawlor as trial judge. In this way, the defense 
managed to keep the attorneys for the State engaged until late 
in August. Then Ruef was made to face another jury. 

391 Kelly claimed to have telephoned Langdon within a few 
minutes after Blake had, left him. In this he was borne out by 
his employer, Samuel M. Snyder. Snyder testified that on his re- 
turn to his office on the afternoon of July 31, he met Blake leav- 
ing. Kelly had followed him into his private office. Of the inter- 
view which followed Snyder testified at the hearing of the case 
as follows: 

"I said (to Kelly) 'Well, what is the matter now?' And he 
said that Mr. Blake was just in and wanted to give him $500. I said, 
'What for?' 'Well,' he said, 'to do the right thing on the jury.' 
He had been called on a jury case, the Ruef case. He said, 'I had 
a notion to punch his head.' That is just the remark Mr. Kelly 
used. I said, 'Oh, I would not get excited like that; that is fool- 
ishness.' He said, 'What do you advise doing? If I go out and 
do anything rash I am liable to get into trouble, ain't I?' I said, 
'Yes, you better not do that.' I said, 'If I were you' — this is the 
language I used to Mr. Kelly, I said, 'I would telephone to Mr. 
Langdon and tell him.' He said, 'Well, that might hurt your 
business.' I said, 'Well, I don't believe that would hurt my busi- 
ness any. I firmly believe that jurors should not be tampered 
with by anyone to try any case, no matter what it is.' And from 
there he did telephone to Mr. Langdon. 

The Court: "When was this, Mr. Snyder?" 

"A. That was on the 31st of July, pretty close to 5 o'clock in 
the afternoon. 

"Q. Did Mr. Kelly call up a telephone number from the office 
at that time? 

"A. He called up Mr. Langdon from the office at that time. 
I was sitting right by the side of him." 



Jury-Fixing Uncovered 359 

been approached by a building contractor, E. A. S. 
Blake, and offered $500 if he would qualify on the 
Ruef jury and vote for acquittal. 392 

Langdon called in Burns. Burns advised Kelly to 
pretend to listen to Blake's overtures, to insist that 
$500 was too little, and to demand $1000, to the end 
that Blake might be trapped and the jury-fixing, which 
all believed to be going on, be uncovered. 

Kelly, co-operating with Burns, followed these in- 
structions. In his dealings with Blake, Kelly insisted 
upon $1000 as the price of his services in Ruefs behalf, 
which Blake finally consented should be paid him. The 
negotiations were carried on during August. Finally 
on September 3, Burns directed Kelly to step up to the 
bar of Judge Lawlor's court where Ruefs trial was 
proceeding, and tell his story. 

As Kelly on that day approached the bar, during a 
lull in the proceedings, Ach, it is alleged, was heard to 
ejaculate to the little group about Ruef, "There she 
goes." 

392 Of Blake's negotiations Kelly testified: "Mr. Blake began 
about this way: He said, 'Now, John, I have got a proposition to 
make to you, and I don't know how you will take it. If you like 
it, all right, if you don't, just keep it quiet.' He says, 'There is 
a chance for you to make a little money.' He said, 'You are 
drawn to serve on the Ruef jury.' I was surprised to hear that. 
I told him, 'I know I am on some panel in Judge Lawlor's Court, 
but didn't know it was the Ruef jury.' I said, 'How did you find 
out?' 'Oh,' he said — I think he said a friend of his told him, or 
something like that; but anyhow he said, 'Now, it is this way; 
there is $500 in, it for you if you will get on that jury and vote 
to acquit Mr. Ruef.' I says, 'Well, Mr. Blake, I have never done 
anything like that, and it is a pretty big chance to take. I don't 
want anything like that'; and he began to urge it on me. I said, 
'Now, give me a chance to think it over.' " 

Kelly testified that his first impulse was to denounce Blake. 
But instantly he reflected that the denunciation would do no good. 
Besides, he reflected, it was possible that Blake might be trapped. 

As soon as ±slake left the office. Kelly told what had occurred 
to his employer, Snyder, and within an hour was in consultation 
with District Attorney Langdon and Burns. 



360 Jury-Fixing Uncovered 

Frank J. Murphy, one of Ruef's attorneys, imme- 
diately jumped to his feet, and claimed the court's at- 
tention. 

"If your honor please," said Murphy, "if that com- 
pletes the examination of this panel and it is necessary 
to draw further from the box, there is a statement I 
desire to make to this Court which is based upon some 
reflection and upon the advice of the Presiding Judge 
of this court. Some several weeks ago, or about two 
weeks ago I should say, one of the jurors upon this 
panel sent to me indirectly and offered to accept money 
for his vote. Charges of bribery, of course, have been 
numerous in connection with this case, but this is the 
first instance that I have ever heard of in connection 
with this case or in connection with any other case that 
any juror has solicited a bribe, or has been offered a 
bribe. I consulted with Judge Sturtevant 393 about the 
matter on the 1st of September. I stated to him the 
facts in the case and he advised me that whenever the 
time became ripe for the juror to be called into the box 
that it was my duty to present it to this court. Now, 
the juror's name is John Martin Kelly, and I was in- 
formed indirectly that Mr. Kelly solicited $1000 for his 
vote in this case, and the matter is of so much impor- 
tance, your Honor, that I think an investigation should 



393 Judge Sturtevant, at the investigation which followed, showed 
himself not at all clear as to details. Finally Murphy asked him: 

"Q. Judge, do you remember that I said to you that I had 
information that one of the jurors was willing to sell his vote for 
$1,000 and someone had come to me with that? 

"A. I remember, Mr. Murphy, you mentioned the amount of 
$1,000 regarding one of his statements, but I would not go further 
than that; I don't remember what this man had agreed to do for 
the thousand dollars. That is my general recollection that that is 
about the substance of the statement you made to me." 



Jury- Fixing Uncovered 361 

be had by this court before this case proceeds further, 
and if necessary the Grand Jury should look into this 
matter and give it a thorough and exhaustive examina- 
tion. Now, if your Honor please, I don't want to do 
Mr. Kelly an injustice. I would hesitate, if the Court 
please, to make a charge of that kind, but my informant 
is a man whom I have known but a very short time, 
and after a thorough examination by me of him, after 
eliciting from him every fact I could in connection with 
the case, I am induced to believe that he came with 
authority from Mr. Kelly to make this proposition to 
myself and one of the attorneys who was connected 
with one of the other cases. Now, if the Court please, 
under the advice of Judge Sturtevant, whom I consulted 
on the subject twice, I deem it my duty to call that to 
the attention of your Honor and if it is necessary to 
file any affidavit to set the machinery of this court in 
motion I am willing and ready to procure an affidavit 
to file so that a complete investigation may be had of 
this matter." 

Murphy's statement created a sensation, which was 
more than duplicated by the statement made by Heney 
the moment after. 

"If the Court please," said Heney, "before Mr. Mur- 
phy takes the stand I have a statement to make. Mr. 
Murphy says that he discussed this subject on the 1st. 
I have in my pocket a statement dictated by Mr. Kelly 
— this is one of the most audacious pieces of business I 
have yet met with — I have a statement made by this 
juror on August 28, 1908, that is before Mr. Murphy 
bethought him to go and see Judge Sturtevant, in which 
this juror sets forth fully the fact that a man was sent 



362 Jury-Fixing Uncovered 

to him to bribe him in this case, and this juror not only 
made that statement on August 28th, but this juror 
went to the District Attorney's office, to Mr. Langdon, 
the other day, on July 31st, the day it was made, it is a 
long time now and he has been acting under the Dis- 
trict Attorney's advice ever since, and Mr. Murphy 
never saw fit to call your Honor's attention to it until 
he saw Mr. Kelly come in the door there and antici- 
pated from the fact that Mr. Blake was traced to Mr. 
Ach's office yesterday that Mr. Kelly was about to state 
to your Honor that he wanted this matter investigated, 
and that an attempt had been made to bribe him, and 
that under the District Attorney's advice he was going 
on to permit them to pay the money, if necessary, so 
that we might catch them in this act, and it is only 
because they have had occasion to suspect we knew it, 
that Mr. Murphy has the audacity to come in here and 
ask for an investigation. Now, we ask that Mr. Kelly 
take the stand and make the statement to your Honor 
that he came here for the purpose of making, and that 
Mr. Murphy didn't say anything about until he saw him 
standing there ready to make it to your Honor. He 
jumped up as soon as he saw Mr. Kelly walk in here." 
After Heney had made his statement, Murphy took 
the stand and swore that Kelly, through Blake, had 
solicited a bribe of $1000 from Murphy to vote for 
Ruef's acquittal. Nevertheless, Mr. Murphy, as well as 
Mr. A. S. Newburgh, another of Ruef's attorneys, ad- 
mitted under oath that they had suggested to Blake 
that he interview Kelly. 394 

M04 Murphy's testimony on this point, was as follows: "On a 
day between the 20th of July and the 1st day of August, I went 



Jury-Fixing Uncovered 363 

Kelly took the stand and testified in a straightfor- 
ward manner that he had been approached by Blake, 
that he had consulted with the District Attorney, and 
that a trap had been set to catch the alleged jury-fixer. 

Detectives were sent out to notify Blake that he 
was wanted in court. But Blake could not be found. 
Later he was arrested as he was about to board an 
outgoing train. 

Blake was found to be a poor man on the brink of 
bankruptcy. He had neither money, nor property. Nev- 
ertheless, attorneys 395 came forward to defend him ; 

to the office of Mr. Newburgh. Mr. Newburgh was then engaged in 
defending Mr. Ruef on a preliminary examination had in one of 
the Parkside cases. We were discussing generally the Ruef cases 
and the graft prosecution, and a man came into the office who 
was introduced to me by Mr. Newburgh as E. A. S. Blake. This 
present jury panel had been drawn, and we were discussing the 
Ruef cases generally, and finally I made a remark that the trial 
of Mr. Ruef in one of these cases — referring to 1436, 1437 and 1438, 
would proceed as soon as the Police Court examination was fin- 
ished, and I stated that a jury had been impaneled, or a jury had 
been 1 drawn, I had a list of the jury in my pocket, and I pulled 
it out and said to both Mr. Newburgh and to Mr. Blake: 'Perhaps 
you might know some of these people.' Mr. Blake glanced at the 
list, and he came down to the name of Mr. Kelly, and he said, 'I 
know Mr. Kelly; I have known him for a number of years; I used 
to work at Shreve's jewelry store with him; and he is an intimate 
acquaintance of mine.' Then I said, having in mind the decision 
of your Honor in the contempt case of W. J. Burns and others — " 

The Court: (interruption): "Did this occur after that de- 
cision?" 

"A. Yes — no, your Honor — I don't know — no, no. But having 
in mind — I will state what I had in mind — a statement your Honor 
had made at some previous time, that either side had the right 
to find out how the jury stood; that is, if they used legitimate 
means. I said to Mr. Blake, I said, 'How do you think Mr. Kelly 
stands on the graft prosecution?' 'Well,' he said, 'Mr. Kelly is a 
very liberal-minded fellow and I think he would give Ruef a 
square deal.' So I then said, 'Well, I would like to find out 
whether any of Mr. Burns' gumshoe men have interviewed him, 
or whether he belongs to the Good Government League or the 
League of Justice or any kindred organizations.' He said he would 
find out the next time he met Mr. Kelly." 

See printed transcript on appeal The People vs. Abraham Ruef, 
Part II, Vol. II, p. 878. For Newburgh's statement see same tran- 
script, part and volume, pages 943 and 944. 

S95 In this there was remarkable similarity to the legal assist- 
ance given thugs who were from time to time arrested for inter- 
fering with the work of the Prosecution. 



364 Jury-Fixing Uncovered 

bonds were furnished him. The most powerful and 
wealthy defendant in the graft cases was not better 
served. But the best of legal service could not save 
Blake from indictment. Later, both Newburgh and 
Murphy, 396 Mr. Ruefs attorneys, were indicted also, 
charged with corruptly attempting to influence a juror. 397 
Kelly, at Blake's trial, told the same straightforward 
story which he had given at the original investigation. 
He was corroborated by his employer, and others. His 
testimony was most sensational. He stated, for exam- 
ple, that Blake had told him that it would be easy for 
him to qualify as a juror; that Ruefs attorneys would 
try to make it appear that they did not want him, and 
that their examination would be so thorough that the 
prosecution would not ask a question. Blake had also 
told him, Kelly testified, that he need not worry; that 
some jurors had taken money for their votes in the 
former Ruef trial and had not been caught. 

396 Murphy had figured in the Ruef trials, somewhat sensa- 
tionally, from the beginning". When, for instance, Ruef, early in 
March, 1907, was a fugitive from justice, Murphy was acting as 
one of his attorneys. He was placed on the stand in Judge Dunne's 
court. The Chronicle, in its issue of March 7, 1907, contained the 
following account of his testimony: 

"Frank J. Murphy, one of Ruefs lawyers, testified that he had 
last seen Ruef .iust outside Hebbard's courtroom on Monday. 

"Have you been doing any business with him since?" 

"Murphy declined to answer this under his privilege as an 
attorney. 'We are looking for an absconding and hostile defendant, 
and the witness should not be allowed to draw conclusions as to 
whether the business he is doing for him is privileged,' declared 
Hiram Johnson. 

"Heney suggested that it was the request to do this business 
rather than the business itself, that was sought by the Prosecution. 

"A compromise was effected on an answer by the witness that 
he had not communicated directly or indirectly with Ruef during 
the past forty-eight hours." 

807 About the same time, Captain John J. West became in- 
volved in a charge of being connected with an alleged attempt to 
corruptly influence a talesman named John R. Foley to vote to 
acquit Ruef. But the West case was so overshadowed in impor- 
tance by the Blake-Murphy-Newburgh proceedings that the pub- 
lic paid comparatively little attention to it. 



Jury-Fixing Uncovered 365 

Blake was convicted. He was later sentenced to 
serve four years in the penitentiary. After Blake's con- 
viction, but before sentence was passed upon him, he 
sought out Attorney Matt I. Sullivan, one of the few 
prominent San Francisco attorneys who had kept free 
from entangling alliances with the graft defense. To 
Sullivan, Blake made confession 398 of his participa- 
tion in the jury-fixing transaction. In his confession 
he involved Attorneys Murphy and Newburgh. Later, 
in open court, he made public statement of his partici- 
pation. 399 . 

Blake in his statement in court set forth that he had 
become acquainted with Newburgh through having 

398 "Confessing his crimes," said The Call in its issue of October 
30, 1908, "Blake, the jury briber, lays bare the ulcer that eats away 
the vitals of popular government. He explains why the San Fran- 
cisco Graft Prosecution has not yet put anybody in the penitentiary. 
He makes it clear why Ruef is not in stripes. He shows why it 
is next to impossible to convict a rich man. He answers the famil- 
iar question, 'What's the matter with San Francisco?' 

"On his way to prison Blake pauses for a moment and gives the 
people of San Francisco the most convincing argument in favor of 
the Graft Prosecution that they have had since the boodled Super- 
visors told their story of shame, and Ruef, in tears, delivered his 
confession, since recanted. Blake's revelation is of inestimable 
value to the cause of decency. Opportunely he tears away curtain 
and scenery and lets the people see what goes on behind the showy 
pretense of the graft defense. In the nick of time he exposes 
some of the actors in that satirical comedy which might very well 
be called 'To Hell with the Law — Money is Above It.' " 

399 Members of the faculty of Stanford University sent the fol- 
lowing communication to Rudolph Spreckels, William H. Langdon, 
Francis J. Heney, William J. Burns and their associates: 

"We, the undersigned citizens of the State of California, realiz- 
ing the far reaching significance of the sworn confession, as a jury 
briber, of E. A. S. Blake, extend to you our earnest and sincere 
congratulations on having successfully demonstrated the nature of 
some of the obstacles blocking the way of the conviction of powerful 
criminals in our commonwealth. 

"Believing that no stability of social relations, including normal 
business conditions, can be established on a less firm basis than 
incorruptible courts and honest juries, leading to the prompt and 
sure administration of justice, we wish to assure you of our con- 
tinued confidence and moral support in the great work upon which 
you are engaged." 

The letter was signed by President David Starr Jordan and 
practically all the members of the faculty. 



366 Jury-Fixing Uncovered 

offices in the same building with him. He had, he said, 
met Murphy in Newburgh's office. Newburgh had in- 
troduced them. Murphy, he stated, had shown him a 
list of prospective jurors, and had asked him if he knew 
any of them. He had told the lawyers that he knew 
John Martin Kelly. They had, Blake stated, got him 
to make an offer to Kelly, which he did. He had offered 
Kelly $500 and finally $1000. Kelly (acting under in- 
structions from District Attorney Langdon and Burns) 
had finally agreed to take $1000. Blake testified that 
he had reported back to Murphy that Kelly would ac- 
cept the money. 

Following his arrest, Blake testified, his lawyers had 
come to him without his solicitation, 400 with the state- 
ment in explanation that they had come from a mutual 
friend. Blake stated that he had heard afterward that 
the "mutual friend" was Murphy and Newburgh. His 
bonds had been furnished without his stir, through his 
attorneys. Murphy and Newburgh, he claimed, had as- 
sured him they would do everything they could for him ; 
that he need not worry; that they would provide for 
him and provide for his wife in case he were con- 
victed. 401 

Continuing, Blake stated that after his conviction he 
had had a talk with Murphy. The general nature of 
the interview was that he had good ground for a new 
trial. "They said," Blake testified, " 'when we get up 

400 Similar testimony was given at Murphy's trial. 

401 It developed later that the Blakes had been living together 
under a contract marriage. Later they went through the marriage 
ceremony. This phase of the case was made much of by the 
defense. Mrs. Blake, however, stood devotedly by her husband 
through all the trying events that followed his arrest and impris- 
onment. 



Jury-Fixing Uncovered 367 

to the higher court, it will be thrown out,' or something 
of that kind." 

According to Blake's statement, a fund of $10,000 
was promised him and an agreement was made that his 
wife should be paid $100 a month during his imprison- 
ment. Murphy, he said, showed him what purported to 
be promissory notes 402 aggregating $7500. The notes, 
he alleged, were made to Murphy and signed with 

402 Of these promissory notes Blake, in his statement to the 
court as published at the time, testified as follows: 

"Q. How much money were you to get? A. I was to get 
$10,000. 

"Q. For what? What were you to get that $10,000 for? A. 
Well, I was to say nothing about this matter, and that my wife 
would — 

"Q. In other words — . A. She was to be provided for. She 
was to get $100 a month. The Court. How? A. To be taken care 
of when I was convicted, you know. 

"Q. During your incarceration? A. Yes, and I was to have the 
$10,000. 

Mr. Langdon: "Q. Who told you he would give you $10,000? A. 
Mr. Murphy. 

"Q. What did he say? Just tell us what he said about that. 
A. The money was to be placed in the hands of a third party, who 
I would select, provided the one I selected would be satisfactory to 
them and they felt they could always have confidence in, or some- 
thing of that kind. That $10,000 was to be turned over to me im- 
mediately upon my sentence — just as soon as my sentence was 
passed the money was to be turned over. 

*'Q. As soon as the court sentenced you you would receive the 
$10,000 that Murphy put into the hands of this third person? A. 
Yes. 

"Q. Did he tell you what kind of money it was, or what repre- 
sentative value it was. Did he show you any of that? Did Murphy 
show you anything? A. Yes, he showed me $7,500, but he did not 
show me the $10,000 that was put into the hands of the party that 
I selected. He told me that he had it. 

"Q. What was this $7,500 that Murphy showed you? In what 
form or shape? A. In notes. 

"Q. Promissory notes? A. Yes. 

"Q. Signed by who? A. Signed by Mr. Ruef. 

"Q. Abraham Ruef? A. Yes. 

"Q. Who else signed them, if any one? A. They were indorsed 
by his father and sister. 

"Q. His father? 

"The Court — promissory notes to you from Abraham Ruef, and 
indorsed? A. The promissory notes, your honor, were made out to 
Mr. Murphy, and he was to turn these over to the third party, 
indorsed, I presume, to the third party, who I might select. The 
notes read, "One year after date I promise to pay to Frank J. Mur- 
phy,' that is the way the notes read. 

"Q. And signed? A. And signed by Mr. Ruef, and then they 
were countersigned or indorsed by his father and sister." 



368 Jury-Fixing Uncovered 

Ruef's name with the endorsement of Ruef's sister and 
father. Blake was requested to select a representative 
to hold the notes. It was alleged that Blake named 
Martin Stevens, an attorney, as such representative. 403 

After Blake's confession came the trials of Murphy 
and Newburgh. They did not differ to any great extent 
from the principal graft trials. There were the delaying 
tactics that had been characteristic of the graft cases ; 
failure of jurors to agree; acquittals. 

Murphy's trial came first. There was against him 
the testimony of Blake and Kelly, corroborated at many 
points by other witnesses. Murphy made denial. In 
his defense, too, many witnesses took the stand to testify 
to his good character. 404 Murphy was acquitted. 

Newburgh's trial followed. The first jury failed to 
agree. It was stated at the time that the jury stood six 



403 Stevens denied this. Stevens was called before the Grand 
Jury and questioned. He declined to answer on the ground that 
the relations of attorney toward client cannot be violated. Blake 
exonerated Stevens from this obligation. But Stevens held that he 
acted for Murphy as well as Blake. The court held, however, that 
the communications were not privileged. Stevens in his testimony 
which followed, denied everything that tended to implicate himself 
and Murphy in any way with the attempted jury fixing, or with 
the alleged $10,000 fund. 

404 Among those who testified to Murphy's good character was 
Rev. H. H. Wyman, at that time the head of the Paulist Order at 
San Francisco. Another Paulist priest, Rev. Stark, showed great 
interest in Murphy's welfare. 

After Murphy's acquittal a story was current in San Francisco 
to the effect that at a dinner given soon after Murphy's acquittal, 
Murphy had promised a present to the Paulist Church, St. Mary's, 
and that Father Stark had announced that a plate bearing Mur- 
phy's name and the date of his acquittal should be placed upon the 
gift. 

However unjustified the story may have been, Murphy did give 
St. Mary's a present — a pulpit. On the pulpit was put a plate 
bearing Murphy's name and a date. The incident so incensed 
priests of the Paulist order who were not in sympathy with the 
course of Fathers Wyman and Stark at Murphy's trial, that they 
entered the church with a screw-driver, removed the plate, and 
threw it into San Francisco bay. Later a second plate was put 
upon the pulpit. So far as the writer knows, the second plate is 
still in its place. 



Jury-Fixing Uncovered 369 

for conviction and six for acquittal. At his second trial, 
Newburgh was acquitted. 

But Blake was in jail under a four years' sentence 
to the penitentiary. Astonishing as the revelations in 
the Blake jury-fixing case had been, they were to be 
overshadowed by the events of Ruef's trial. Even as 
the city stood aghast at the evidence of jury tampering. 
Assistant District Attorney Heney was, during the prog- 
ress of the trial, shot down in open court. 



CHAPTER XXV. 
The Shooting of Heney. 

In spite of the sensational events following the trap- 
ping of Blake, the work of impaneling a jury to try 
Ruef went steadily on. After months of effort, 405 a 
jury was finally sworn to try the case. 

Again the telling of the sordid story of the city's 
betrayal commenced. 

Gallagher, the pivotal witness, had begun his sorry 
recital. In the midst of it occurred what those who had 
followed the methods of the graft defense had long 
predicted. 

Assistant District Attorney Heney was shot down. 404 
The shooting occurred in open court during a brief 
recess. 

Heney was seated at his place at the attorneys' table 



405 Seventy-two days were required to impanel the jury before 
which Ruef was tried, fifty days being devoted to actual court work. 
There were summoned 1,450 talesmen, of whom 446 were examined. 
Six jurors were denied their freedom for forty-two days before the 
jury was completed. Blake, arrested for jury-fixing, was trapped, 
tried and convicted before the jury was completed. Two of Ruef's 
attorneys were, during the impaneling of the jury, indicted for 
alleged connection with Blake's attempt to influence the jury in 
Ruef's favor. 

406 There is, so far as the writer can find, no evidence that the 
Graft Defense or its agents employed Haas to kill Heney any more 
than there is evidence that the Graft Defense or its agents em- 
ployed Pauduveris to murder the pivotal witness, Gallagher. But 
that Haas was urged to kill Heney because of the exposure of 
Haas's previous record at the first Ruef trial is well established. 

"I was urged frequently," said Haas in a confession made to 
Langdon and Burns, "to kill Heney by certain persons whose names 
I will not tell you, and I also talked to other people about killing 
Heney and was advised by them not to do it. In addition to that, 
certain persons approached me several times and referred to the 



The Shooting of Heney 371 

talking with an assistant. The jury had left the court- 
room. Gallagher had for the moment left the witness 
box and was standing a few feet from Heney waiting 
opportunity to speak with him. A few feet further away 
was Heney's body guard. In the room were something 
more than 200 citizens waiting for the trial to be re- 
sumed. There was the usual confusion which attends 
a five-minute court recess. Court attaches, officials, at- 
torneys, citizens were passing to and fro without hin- 
drance. 

The man who shot Heney had no difficulty in gain- 
ing access to the courtroom. He walked deliberately to 
the attorneys' table, and before he was even noticed, 

time I was thrown off the Ruef jury, saying: 'I'd never stand that 
sort of a roast,' and 'I'd kill a man who did that to me,' and sim- 
ilar things." 

Who urged Haas to do this thing, and what was their motive? 
Haas alone could have answered the first question. But the bullet 
that ended his life sealed his lips forever. 

Of Haas's purpose in getting on the first Ruef jury we have 
some testimony. Joseph Brachman, a close associate of Ruef, who 
had known Haas for nearly a quai'ter of a century, said in an inter- 
view published in the San Francisco Call, November 15, 1908: 

"When Ruef was on trial in the Parkside case, on the bribery 
charge, I heard that Haas had been called on the jury panel. At 
that time I was frequently in consultation with Ruef, every day, in 
fact. But I was afraid to go to Ruef with what I knew of Haas, 
so I went to one of his lawyers — I won't say which one — and told 
him of the record of Haas. I told him that Haas was a bad man 
and an ex- convict. I said that Ruef should challenge him. 

"I was in court the day that Haas qualified and passed into 
the jury. Again I told his attorney that Haas was a bad man, to 
get rid of him, but nothing was done. When Heney produced the 
evidence showing that Haas was an ex-convict I was in court, also. 
I met Haas after he had been disqualified. Haas told me the rea- 
son why he stayed on the jury and why his record was not made 
public by the defense of Ruef. He told me that he expected $4,000 
from Ruef for his services on the Parkside case jury. He said 
that he was hard up, that he was in debt, that he owed money on 
his saloon and that if he had been permitted to stay on the jury 
he would have been able, with the $4,000 to be paid him by Ruef, 
to clear himself of debt. 

"He also told me, Haas did, on the day that he was disquali- 
fied, that he was going to 'kill one of the prosecutors.' He did not 
say which one, but he frequently repeated to me, that he was 
'going to get one of the prosecutors.' I met him many times and 
often, frequently he told me that he was 'going to get one of the 
prosecutors.' " 



372 The Shooting of Heney 

had fired deliberately at the Assistant Prosecutor. The 
gun was held not more than six inches from Heney's 
head. In an instant, Heney's bodyguard was upon the 
assassin. But the bodyguard's efforts came late. Heney, 
apparently mortally wounded, was lying unconscious on 
the floor, the blood gushing from a ragged hole in front 
of the right ear, just under the temple. 407 

Heney's assailant was found to be one Morris Haas, 
an ex-convict, who had succeeded in securing a place 
on the jury at the former Ruef trial. Heney had ex- 
posed him. 408 When it was demanded of him why he 
had attempted to kill Heney, he murmured incoherently, 
that it was "for humanity's sake." Although closely 
questioned Haas would tell little of value to those who 
were seeking to get at the real motive behind the as- 
sault. He was thoroughly searched both by Detective 
Burns and Captain of Police Thomas Duke, and then 
taken to the county jail where he was closely guarded. 

A short time before the shooting of Heney, Judge 
Lawlor had had attorneys of both sides before him to 
state that in his judgment, he should remand Ruef, who 
was out of jail under heavy bonds, to the custody of 
the Sheriff for the remainder of the trial. Shortly 
after this conference Heney had been shot down. 

When the court had re-convened, and the jury had 
been dismissed for the day, Judge Lawlor carried out 
his intention and ordered the Sheriff to take charge of 
Ruef. The shooting had occurred on Friday afternoon, 



407 Physicians state that Heney's escape from death was by a 
hair's breadth. Had the bullet, striking as it did, taken any other 
course death would have been inevitable. 

408 See Chapter XXIII. 



The Shooting of Heney ' 373 

November 13. The court adjourned until the following 
Monday. 409 

Heney in the meantime had been taken to a hospital. 
There it was found that the wound was not necessarily 
fatal. The rumors current that Heney had been killed 
were denied. This tended to calm the excitement. 

Nevertheless, San Francisco and all California were 
aroused as never before in the State's history. In a 
twinkling, the results of months of misrepresentation, 
ridicule and abuse of the Prosecution were swept away. 
Haas' bullet had not killed Heney, 410 but it had awakened 
the community to tardy realization of its responsibil- 
ity. 411 Men who had laughed at the Examiner's "Mutt 



409 "Will they," demanded The Call the morning after Heney 
had been shot down, "stop at nothing? Are not stealing, perjury, 
bribery, dynamiting, murder, enough? Must the course of justice 
in this community run the gamut of violence, as well as of slander 
and pettifogging obstruction? 

"Apparently it must. But there is at least no longer any rea- 
son to doubt where the responsibility lies. A bare chance, the mo- 
mentary tremor of an assassin's hand, may have saved the life of 
Francis J. Heney to this community. There will be no tremor in 
the finger of scorn that points past the miserable wretch that did 
the shooting to the men that inspired it. A worthless crank, of 
course. It always is. Dirty hands for dirty work. But softer 
hands and keener brains plan it. And the community will waste 
no wrath on the miserable tool, now cowering in jail. It was not 
he who has dogged the steps of Francis J. Heney these two years 
with hired thugs. It was not he who has filled the courtrooms 
with professional ruffians. It was not he who dynamited Galla- 
gher — or hired it done. Least of all was it he who made a joke of 
that crime and sought to make a joke and a byword of the heroic 
Heney — 'poor Beany.' " 

410 While Heney lay wounded at San Francisco, and Haas lay 
dead, another tragedy growing out of the Graft Prosecution was 
being enacted on the other side of the globe. John Krause, who 
had been T. V. Halsey's assistant at the time of the Pacific States 
Telephone briberies, killed himself on the steamer Adriatic as it 
plied from Cherbourg, France, to Queenstown, Ireland. Krause 
had disappeared from San Francisco in December, 1907. It was 
never charged that Krause was a. principal to the bribery transac- 
tions, or that he had even guilty knowledge of them. His only 
possible connection with the graft cases was as a witness against 
the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company officials. 

4ii "A great work." said Hiram W. Johnson, in an interview 
printed in the San Francisco Call, November 14, 1908, "undertaken 
and accomplished, though not yet wholly completed, has been 



374 The Shooting of Heney 

cartoons" ridiculing the Prosecution, now threatened to 
mob The Examiner office. Patrons of the defense- 
supporting Chronicle now voiced their utter condemna- 
tion of that paper. Thousands withdrew their subscrip- 
tions from the two publications. The time was ripe for 
the demagogue. An impolitic word from the defense 
just then, an incendiary speech from some unwise par- 
tisan of the Prosecution, would have been sufficient to 
have sent a mob marching upon the jail in which Haas 
and Ruef were confined, or upon the residences of the 
indicted bribe-givers, or against the newspaper offices 
which for months had labored to make the Graft Prose- 
cution unpopular. 

There was a feeling that the criminal element was 
too powerfully intrenched to be reached through the 
ordinary legal channels. The feeling, which had sub- 
sided when the Graft Prosecution opened, 412 that the 



retarded for a day by an assassin's bullet. When Frank Heney 
fell today while in the performance of his duty, decency and the 
right were stricken. For two years this one man has persevered 
in the right, for right's sake alone. Without compensation, sacri- 
ficing a great legal practice, giving without complaint the best 
years of his life, Francis J. Heney, facing all the combined forces 
of evil in this community and State, has stood unflinchingly at his 
post, making the fight that is the fight of all of us. Daily abuse 
and vilification have been his portion and reward. In spite of it, 
where a weaker man would have faltered, Heney has persevered. 
He has done in seeking to make equality before the law an assur- 
ance in this State, all that a strong and a brave man could do. 
Were he to pass away tonight he'd need no other monument than 
the work he has done. For generations his expose of rottenness 
in San Francisco, his prosecutions of the criminal rich will live and 
make this city and State better. He has been shot simply because 
he was fighting for the right. Not alone has he been wounded; 
but the community and the commonwealth have suffered the in- 
jury. 

"We who were with him in the early days of the struggle, and 
knew his every mood; who saw him at his work day and night, 
and loved the qualities that made it possible for him to accomplish 
what he has, can not express our horror and indignation and 
anger at his attempted assassination. May God speed his recov- 
ery." 

412 See Chapter IV. 



The Shooting of Heney 375 

graft evil could not be corrected except by extra-legal 
means, was to some degree revived. 

In this emergency, the leaders of the Graft Prosecu- 
tion, by counseling moderation and observance of the 
law, did yeoman service in the keeping of good order in 
San Francisco. 

The Citizens' League of Justice 413 called a mass 
meeting for the Saturday evening following the shoot- 
ing. Even in the call, the League urged there be no 
breach of the peace. 

"Francis J. Heney," the League's call read, "has 
fallen by the hand of an assassin, shot from behind 
while fighting at his post in the cause of justice for the 
people of this city. He would be the first man to appeal 
to the calm reason of the citizens to preserve order and 
proceed only by the processes of law; to look not for 
vengeance, but to demand swift justice through the 
courts. We make the same appeal." 

Mayor Taylor presided at the meeting. Long before 
the hour set for the opening, the auditorium was packed 
to the doors, with thousands on the outside clamoring 



413 The Citizens' League of Justice was organized immediately 
after the attempted assassination of Witness Gallagher by means 
of dynamite. Those immediately connected with the prosecution, 
it had been amply demonstrated, were risking their lives. In the 
Citizens' League of Justice was proposed an organization, entirely 
separate and apart from the graft prosecution, to back the prosecu- 
tion. The idea originated with Bruce Porter, the artist. Rev. 
Charles N. Lathrop, of the Church of the Advent, became inter- 
ested. The initial meeting was held at Father Lathrop's house. 
While the League had no connection with the prosecution, it be- 
came most effective in support of the prosecution group. Professor 
George H. Boke, of the University of California Law School, ac- 
cepted the hazardous position of the League's executive officer. In 
spite of the fact that he was jeopardizing his position at the State 
University by his course, Professor Boke did much effective work 
in bringing the conditions which confronted San Francisco squarely 
before the public. Matt I. Sullivan, who afterwards became Chief 
Justice of the State Supreme Court, served as the League's pres- 
ident. 



376 The Shooting of Heney 

for entrance. Those in charge of the meeting were 
compelled to call it to order several minutes before they 
had intended. 

Professor George H. Boke of the University of Cali- 
fornia Law School, and manager of the Citizens' League 
of Justice, was to introduce Mayor Taylor. Several 
minutes before the time set for the meeting, the crowd 
started a cheer for Heney. The demonstration lasted for 
fully five minutes. Then some one started the cry, 
"Throw the Examiner out." Hundreds half rose from 
their seats, their eyes bent upon the press table where 
representatives of The Examiner were seated. 

Professor Boke at once grasped the significance of the 
movement, and acted on the instant. Stepping to the 
fore, he made a brief address introducing Mayor Taylor, 
thereby checking the threatened demonstration. 

Mayor Taylor was quick to sound the keynote of the 
meeting. "Let us," he said in introducing the first 
speaker, "see to it that no matter who else breaks the 
law, that we shall not break it." 414 

414 Dr. Taylor's observations on this point were as follows: "Let 
us see to it that no matter who else breaks the law, that we shall 
not break it. In this crisis, we must, above all things, keep our 
heads. We must, above all things, while resolute and determined, 
be self-restrained. 

"San Francisco has had many afflictions. She now has this addi- 
tional affliction of the assassination of one who stood for the peo- 
ple's rights; of one who was fearlessly engaged in the important 
and priceless business of civic regeneration, and who, while in the 
act of performing the greatest of all duties as a citizen, was laid 
low by the bullets of an assassin. 

"But let us not add to the affliction the affliction of breaking 
the peace. Let us, above all things, as I have said, keep ourselves 
restrained. Let us not add to the afflictions that are upon us the 
affliction of mob law. Let us go about our business, whatever we 
may do in this matter, in a peaceful way, but in a resolute way, 
in a determined way. I am satisfied that the officers of the law 
will do their duty. I am satisfied that the judges will do their 
duty, and that our juries will do their duty. And if they, each 
one of them, perform faithfully the functions upon his part, we 
have nothing to fear, and we shall see that those who are guilty 
are punished and are rightfully punished." 



The Shooting of Heney 377 

Every speaker who followed the Mayor emphasized 
this. "Let us," said the Rev. William Rader, "have 
heads which are cool and minds which are rational." 

"We stand in this fight," said District Attorney Lang- 
don, "for law and order. And I want to say to you 
and ask you to pass it on to your neighbors, that, as 
crimes have been committed, those crimes must be pun- 
ished, but punished within the law. And I want to say 
further, that as the law officers of this city and county, 
we shall consider any man who expresses an opinion or 
sentiment that we ought to resort to measures extra- 
judicial, as an enemy of good government." 

"Why," demanded James D. Phelan, "should we take 
violent steps? Is not San Francisco a great, civilized 
community? Are not our American institutions still 
intact? They are. And although in the early days of 
San Francisco the Vigilance Committee, an extra-legal 
tribunal, was resorted to for the purpose of correcting 
such abuses, we must remember that at that time we 
were a border State, at that time we were a mining 
camp. Only such a strenuous method would then have 
succeeded, because judges who were on the bench were 
elected by ballot-box stuffers, a council was elected in 
the same way. Crime was rampant, nobody was pun- 
ished. Then the men of San Francisco organized a 
tribunal and gave an orderly trial to every offender 
whom they apprehended, and as a result this city was 
cleansed of crime and remained a model community for 
twenty years. 

"But conditions now are different. It is true that 
within the last year there has been a feeling in this 
community that the criminal law had broken down, and 



37$ The Shooting of Heney 

that we could not, under the law, punish the offenders ; 
and that the courts, the highest courts, abetted and aided 
criminals by the rankest interpretations, technical inter- 
pretations of the statutes. They refused to lean on the 
side of order and justice, and they have brought dis- 
grace upon the judiciary of California, all over the 
world. 

"But our civilization and our institutions are safe. 
That vote the other day, and the election of Judge 
Dunne, the election two years ago of Judge Coffey and 
Judge Lawlor, give us courage and confidence to believe 
that, under the constitution and the laws, we can win 
our battle if you only give us time, without any resort 
to violence ; and we are willing, though one hundred days 
have passed, to pursue that work, because that is the 
only way we can do it under the constitution and the 
laws." 

When Rudolph Spreckels entered the building he was 
greeted with demonstration. He, too, while expressing 
great sympathy for his friend who had been stricken 
down, joined in counseling that nothing be done outside 
the law. 

With the urging that no exhibition of mob-violence 
be added to the burden of the afflicted community, was 
given assurance that the Graft Prosecution should go 
on ; that the laws should be upheld ; that those responsi- 
ble for the conditions which had been forced upon San 
Francisco should be brought to justice. Whatever dan- 
ger there was of violence to members of the graft de- 
fense, vanished at that Citizens' League of Justice mass 
meeting. At its conclusion, resolutions were adopted 



The Shooting of Heney 379 

condemning the methods of the defense, declaring un- 
wavering allegiance of those present to law, and pledg- 
ing support in the cleansing of the city of grafters and 
boodlers. 415 

415 The following- resolutions were adopted at the meeting: 

"Whereas, following unparalleled disaster from the elements our 
unfortunate city fell upon times of unprecedented civic corruption, 
necessitating the tearing down of the wreckage of government, 
and the rebuilding of our civic structure on foundations of law 
and justice; and 

"Whereas, the first labor necessary was the prosecution of 
criminals, bribe givers, bribe takers and brokers in corruption; and 

"Whereas, the prosecution, beset with many difficulties, ob- 
tained its evidence in the only way that such evidence could be 
obtained; and 

"Whereas, in the subsequent attempt to convict the guilty 
there was developed a vast conspiracy to thwart the ends of jus- 
tice, which conspiracy has involved social boycott and unjust and 
coercive business pressure, has openly employed thugs to teiTOrize 
the officers of the law, has employed lawyers to browbeat and 
insult witnesses, prosecutors and the judges on the bench, and to 
waste the time and money and to exhaust the patience of the 
people by useless and technical delays, and which conspiracy has 
moreover involved so large a part of our public press that many 
of our people have been deprived of the truth and have been fed 
upon poisoned lies; and 

"Whereas, up to the present time the law as administered has 
proved inadequate to secure that prompt and certain application 
of justice, which must be the basis of social order; and 

"Whereas, out of this conspiracy grew plots to kidnap, and 
actual kidnaping; plots to bribe juries, and actual jury bribing; 
plots to assassinate witnesses and an attempt to assassinate a 
witness by dynamite; and out of it also grew plots to assassinate 
the prosecutors, and the attempted assassination of the bravest 
friend that San Francisco has known, Francis J. Heney; 

"Therefore be it resolved, that here and now we declare our 
unwavering allegiance to law, and that if the criminal law be 
found to be so framed as to permit the escape of civic malefactors 
we shall see to it that the law be amended; that if the lax admin- 
istration of the criminal law be due to misinterpretation by judges, 
we shall see to it that men be placed upon the bench capable of 
construing the law. 

"Be it further resolved, that we call upon the Supervisors to 
provide adequate funds for the District Attorney's office to secure 
the detection, prosecution and conviction of criminals, high or low, 
and the full protection of officers in the discharge of their duties; 

"Be it further resolved, that we demand the truth from our 
public press, and shall see to it that our people are informed of 
the facts that they may judge of those who by lying and misrepre- 
sentation are perverting public opinion. 

"Be it further resolved, that we solemnly assert our utmost con- 
fidence in the law-abiding character of our people; that we here 
declare our gratitude for the inestimable service rendered us by 
the office of the District Attorney in the restoration of reputable 
and responsible government; and that we stand firm in our deter- 
mination to indorse and to aid that office to the end that all per- 
sons accused of crime shall be fairly tried and their guilt or inno- 



380 The Shooting of Heney 

Another crisis had passed in San Francisco. The 
situation was not unlike that of two years before, when 
the clamor that drastic means be taken to free the city 
of Ruefs domination, was silenced by announcement 
that Rudolph Spreckels had guaranteed a fund for the 
investigation of municipal conditions, and to prosecute 
those found to be guilty of corruption. 416 

But even as the citizens met in mass meeting another 
tragedy of the Graft Prosecution was enacted. Haas, 
under the eyes of policemen specially detailed to watch 
him, killed himself or was killed. With him died all 
hope of discovering who had urged him to avenge him- 
self upon Heney. 

Haas' suicide, if it were suicide; or his murder, if it 
were murder; is one of the mysteries of the graft cases. 
He was shot with a derringer. The weapon was an 
inch through at the butt and 5-8 wide at the muzzle — 
certainly an easily discovered weapon by officers prac- 
ticed in searching men. And yet, Haas had, before he 
was put in his cell, been thoroughly searched both by 
Captain Duke 417 of the police force and Detective 

cence be finally established in accordance with the provisions of 
law. 

"To these ends we pledge ourselves, that our beloved city may 
be purged of boodlers and grafters and be a better home for our- 
selves and our children. 

"Be it further resolved, that we send word to our wounded 
champion, that his labors for us are appreciated and that his suf- 
ferings for our sake are not in vain." 

416 See Chapter IV. 

417 Captain Duke, at an investigation which followed, testified: 
"At Mr. Burns's suggestion, we took Haas into the room off the 
courtroom occupied by the stenographers. First we made a slight 
search, and then I said to Mr. Burns: 'Are you sure we searched 
him thoroughly?' and we went over him again. I felt down to his 
shoes. I always search a man that way, for when I first went on 
the police forGe I had an experience with a Chinaman, whom Po- 
liceman Helms, who was recently killed, and myself had arrested. 
We found a dagger in his shoe, and since then I have always 



The Shooting of Heney 381 

Burns. The two officers are certain that Haas had no 
weapon upon him. And yet, one theory advanced by 
his keepers is that Haas had the derringer all the time 
concealed in his shoe. Another theory is that the der- 
ringer was smuggled in to him. But, with Haas under 
watchful eyes of special guards, by whom? Another 
theory, popular at the time, was that Haas had been 
murdered in his cell. But if murdered — or even if the 
derringer were smuggled in to him — what was the 
motive behind it? These are questions which, short of 
some death-bed confession, perhaps, are not likely to be 
answered. 

Those who hurried to his cell at the report of the 
derringer found Haas dead. Whether he had shot 
himself or whether he had been shot, his lips were 
sealed forever. 

On the Sunday following the shooting of Heney, 
most of the Protestant pastors of San Francisco made 
the attempted assassination the subject of their sermons. 
The same course was taken throughout the State gen- 
erally. In the afternoon mass meetings were held in 
all parts of the State, at which resolutions were adopted 



examined a man's feet. I will state that I felt the man's shoes 
the other day after they had been put on the corpse and the der- 
ringer placed in them, and from the bulge I noticed then I am 
sure that I would have felt the weapon had it been in his shoe at 
the time of the arrest. We were looking for anything that we 
could find. From something the man said — that he didn't care if 
he lived or not — I thought that he might make an attempt to com- 
mit suicide. 

"It would have been an utter impossibility for the derringer to 
have been anywhere else than in the man's shoe," Duke continued. 
"If it was in his shoe it would have been under the stocking and 
the man would have had it there 29 hours before he killed himself. 
It would have made a mark on the flesh or interfered with his 
walking, and he did not even limp. If the cartridges had been in 
the shoe they could have got under the foot and the man could 
not have walked." 



382 The Shooting of Heney 

condemning the methods of the defense, 418 and pledg- 
ing support to the prosecution. 

Telegrams 419 of condolence and of encouragement 
poured in from all parts of the country. 

418 Neither press nor defending lawyers were spared in the 
criticism. "We have," said Rev. Bradford Leavitt of the First 
Unitarian Church at San Francisco, "dreamed that we were living 
under the government of laws, whereas we were living under the 
government of newspapers hired by corrupt corporations, and the 
enemies of civic decency." 

"The lawyers who are paid to thwart this Graft Prosecution," 
said Charles S. Wheeler, "have proceeded with deliberate plan to 
destroy the effectiveness of the prosecution by withdrawing the 
support of the people. In this way they have reached the home of 
every individual. They have brought cunningly into the home 
their hireling periodicals, and a press misguided or worse, has been 
largely .instrumental in aiding their desire." 

419 President Roosevelt's telegram to Mr. Spreckels was as fol- 
lows: 

"White House, Nov. 14, 1908. 
"To Rudolph Spreckels, San Francisco. 

"Am inexpressibly shocked at the attempted assassination of 
Heney and most earnestly hope he will recover. The infamous 
character of the would-be assassin no less than the infamous char- 
acter of the deed call attention in a striking way to the true char^- 
acter of the forces against which Heney and you and your asso- 
ciates have been struggling. Every decent American who has the 
honor and interest of the country at heart should join not only in 
putting a stop to the cause of violent crime of which this man's 
act is but one of the symptoms, but also in stamping out the 
hideous corruption in which men like this would-be assassin are 
bred and flourish, and that can only be done by warring as Heney 
has warred relentlessly against every man who is guilty of cor- 
rupt practices without any regard to his social standing and his 
prominence in the world of politics or the world of business. I 
earnestly hope that Heney will recover, and I give utterance to 
what I know would be Heney's wish when I say that I earnestly 
hope that whether he recovers or not there be no faltering in the 
work in which Heney has been so gallant and efficient a leader. 

"9:10 A. M. 

"THEODORE ROOSEVELT." 

President Roosevelt telegraphed Mrs. Heney as follows: 

"White House, Nov. 14, 1908. 

"Mrs. Francis J. Heney: — Am inexpressibly shocked at news of 
the attempted assassination of Mr. Heney and am greatly relieved 
at the news this morning that he is doing well and will probably 
recover. I hope you will accept my deepest sympathy. Like all 
good American citizens, I hold your husband in peculiar regard for 
the absolutely fearless way in which he has attacked and exposed 
corruption without any regard to the political or social prominence 
of the offenders or to the dangerous character of the work. Your 
husband has taken his life in his hands in doing this great task 
for our people and is entitled to the credit and esteem, and above 
all, to the heartiest support of all good citizens. The infamous 
character of the man who has assassinated him should add not 
only to the horror and detestation felt for the deed, but also to 



The Shooting of Heney 383 

But in spite of this popular expression of sympathy, 
there were astonishing exhibitions on the part of the 
associates of those who had been indicted or nearly 
indicted because of the graft revelations, of feeling 
against Heney. For example, Rev. David J. Evans, of 
Grace Episcopal Church, on the Sunday following the 
attempted assassination, offered prayer for the recovery 
of the stricken prosecutor. Instantly there was com- 
motion in the pews. Members of the congregation, by 
frown and toss of head, indicated their profound dis- 
approval of their pastor's petition. 420 But frown and 
head-toss and open disapproval of the pews neither 
stopped the prayer, nor prevented its answer. The 
prayer was offered; Heney did not die. 

Within an hour after Heney had been shot down, 
three of the foremost lawyers at the California bar, 
Hiram W. Johnson, Matt I. Sullivan and Joseph J. 
Dwyer, volunteered their services to take up the strug- 



the determination of all decent citizens to stamp out the power of 
all men of his kind. 

"THEODORE ROOSEVELT." 

420 Grace Episcopal Church is attended by many of the most 
prominent citizens of San Francisco. At the time of the shooting 
of Heney, several prominent Episcopalians were under indictment. 
In spite of the intense feeling in his congregation, against the 
prosecution, Rev. Mr. Evans continued to give the work of the 
District Attorney's office his approval. An era of petty persecu- 
tions for Mr. Evans followed. He was finally brought to resign his 
pastorate and accept a less important charge at Palo Alto. - 

In this connection it is interesting to note that in spite of pow- 
erful opposition to the prosecution of prominent Episcopalian lay- 
men, the Convocation of the Church held at San Francisco in 
August, 1907, adopted the following resolutions unanimously: 

"Whereas, Our government is imperiled by the criminal use of 
wealth to influence legislation; and 

"Whereas, Existing conditions in San Francisco present a moral 
issue; therefore be it 

"Resolved, That, in the judgment of this convocation, bribery 
is always a crime deserving punishment, and, furthermore, that 
duty commands every Christian man to exert himself to foster a 
public recognition of the quality of the crime." 



384 The Shooting of Heney 

gle for civic righteousness at the point to which Heney 
had carried it. 

But the attorneys for Ruef, having exhausted every 
other delaying move, saw in the shooting of Heney op- 
portunity for further delay. They accordingly moved 
for change of venue. Failing here, a motion was made 
for thirty days' delay. This being denied, Ruef's attor- 
neys moved that the jury be dismissed. This move 
failing, an attempt was made to examine the twelve 
men in the jury box to determine whether the shooting 
had prejudiced them and unfitted them for jury service. 
These many motions were backed up with affidavits 
containing all that had been said at the public meetings, 
and all that had been printed in San Francisco news- 
papers, since Heney had been shot. The reading of the 
voluminous affidavits consumed hours. The prosecution 
filed answering affidavits which also consumed time. 
But Judge Lawlor finally denied all the contentions of 
the defense and ordered the trial to proceed. 

During these proceedings, the jury had been locked 
up in charge of the regular court officials. The jury 
had not been in the courtroom when Heney was shot, 
and from the moment of the shooting had been shut 
away from the public. But lest the jury had learned 
something of the shooting, and to account for Heney's 
absence, Judge Lawlor deemed it incumbent upon him 
to notify them that Heney had been shot, and to ad- 
monish them that the transaction so far as the court, 
the jury, the defendant, the People of the State, the 
counsel, and all other interests interested or involved 



The Shooting of Heney 385 

in the trial were concerned was to stand as though it 
had not occurred. This Judge Lawlor did. 421 

The trial itself was not unlike the other graft trials. 
The Supervisors told the story of their bribery. Gal- 
lagher told how Ruef had given him the money, and 
how he had given it to Supervisor Furey. Furey tes- 
tified that he had received the money from Gallagher 
because of his vote to grant the overhead trolley permit 
to the United Railroads. The story had by this time 

421 Judge Lawlor's statement to the jury was as follows: "Gen- 
tlemen of the Jury: I have a few words to say to you before this 
trial is resumed at this time. Since you have been sworn as 
jurors the Court has on many occasions, with elaborateness and 
repetition, sought to convey to your minds an understanding of 
your duties as jurors in this case. It has been pointed out to you 
that to the charge which is on trial here, the defendant, Abraham 
Ruef, has interposed a plea of not guilty. That charge, consid- 
ered in connection with that plea, puts in issue, for the determina- 
tion of this Court and jury, the allegations of that charge. You 
have been sworn as jurors to pass upon the facts in the case and 
to apply those facts, when resolved from the evidence, to the rules 
of law which the Court shall finally state to you to govern you in 
the rendition of your verdict. These many admonitions, as it has 
also been pointed out to you from time to time, are founded upon 
a provision of the law which makes it the duty of the Court to 
administer those admonitions. 

"The purpose of the law requiring those admonitions to be 
given is that when a jury is sworn to try an action it shall divest 
itself of all matters which theretofore might have found lodgment 
in the minds of the members and to proceed to render a verdict 
solely upon the matters which shall be brought to the attention of 
the jury in the due course of judicial proceedings. These constant 
reminders of that duty are calculated to keep the sense of jurors 
alive to a full compliance therewith. 

"I doubt if anything I could say at this time would tend to 
amplify what has already been declared from time to time in that 
behalf, but in view of a transaction that occurred in the court- 
room on the afternoon of Friday, November 13, 1908, the Court 
deems it proper to re-emphasize with all the power that it may 
command the duty of the jury to proceed to the further discharge 
of its duty at this time in utter disregard of that transaction. The 
Court realizes that the jurors may have heard or seen a part of 
that transaction, or that phases of that transaction may have been 
communicated to the jury. Now, without regard to what extent 
that assumption may be justified, the Court desires the jurors to 
in every manner relieve their minds of any impression or any- 
thing that they have heard, or anything that has been said, or any- 
thing that has been communicated, or that shall hereafter be 
communicated concerning that transaction; in other words, we are 
to resume this trial at this time at precisely the point that had 
been reached when the recess, during which the transaction oc- 
curred, was declared. 

"I may state to you generally, that on that occasion Mr. Fran- 
13 



386 The Shooting of Heney 

become sadly familiar to the people of San Francisco. 

The trouble experienced with witnesses at former 
trials characterized this trial as well. 

Alex. Lathem, for example, at one time Ruef's 
chauffeur, disappeared from the State about the time 
the trial was to begin. He was brought back from 
Oregon under extradition, charged with having accepted 
a bribe to leave the jurisdiction of the court. On the 
stand, 422 Lathem repudiated important evidence which 



cis J. Heney, the Assistant District Attorney, was shot by a man 
bearing the name of Morris Haas; that Mr. Heney was wounded 
as a result of that assault. Happily the injury was not a serious 
one, and at this time there is every indication that Mr. Heney will 
recover from that injury. 

"Now, that transaction, so far as this Court and the jury, the 
defendant at the bar, the People of the State of California, the 
counsel and all other interests interested or involved in this trial 
are concerned, is to stand as though it had not occurred; no per- 
son is to be charged with any responsibility for that transaction; 
this is not the place for the consideration of that transaction. 

"It may be stated also to you that the assailant afterward took 
his own life while he was confined in the County Jail upon his 
arrest in connection with that transaction. 

"And neither matter, I repeat, should find any place in your 
minds. It should not in any manner form anything in the nature 
of bias or prejudice concerning anyone. 

"This Court would despair of having the law administered upon 
the charge at bar if the jurors did not in every manner comply 
with the admonition of the Court to exclude that transaction 
entirely from their minds." 

422 Lathem testified before the Grand Jury that about the time 
the bribe money had been passed he had driven Ruef to the Hirsch 
Bros, store, where Ruef had obtained a shirt box. He had then 
driven Ruef to the offices of the United Railroads. Ruef had en- 
tered the offices with the box. He had come out later with the 
box and a package. With box and package he had gone to his own 
office, and from there, taking the box and package with him, he 
had been driven to the safe deposit vaults of the Western National 
Bank. 

Lathem did not testify before the Grand Jury until after Ruef 
had confessed, and then Lathem testified with Ruef's consent. It 
is a significant fact that Lathem was sent out of the State the first 
time not in the interest of Ruef but of Tirey L. Ford, head of the 
United Railroads law department. Lathem went to Colorado on 
an automobile trip with the father-in-law of Luther Brown, one 
of the United Railroad detectives. Lathem's wife was permitted 
to accompany them in the automobile. They stopped at the best 
hotels. Lathem was paid $150 a month. 

The importance of Lathem's testimony lies in the fact, that at 
the time he took Ruef with the shirt-box to Ford's office, Ford 



The Shooting of Heney 387 

he had given before the Grand Jury, and to which he 
had made affidavit. As a minor incident of the graft 
trials, Lathem, because of this incident, was indicted 
for perjury. 

But in spite of the backwardness of certain of its 
witnesses, the prosecution succeeded in getting its case 
before the jury. The jury found Ruef guilty as 
charged. He was sentenced to fourteen years' penal 
servitude at San Quentin prison. 



had just received from the Relief corporation officials $50,000 in 
small currency, which made two large bundles, which were car- 
ried to Ford's office by Abbott and himself and placed in Ford's 
desk. This was at the noon hour. A little after one o'clock Ruef 
went to the Western Pacific Safety Deposit vaults where he then 
had a deposit box. The cubic contents of this box was not suffi- 
cient to accommodate those two bundles. Ruef at that time 
secured two additional boxes. The cubic contents of all three 
boxes together was just sufficient to nicely accommodate said 
two bundles. 

The theory of the prosecution was that Ruef carried bribe 
money in box and package. 

At the trial, Lathem stated that the story which he had told 
before the Grand Jury was not true. 



CHAPTER XXVI. 
The Calhoun Trial. 

The trial of Patrick Calhoun for offering a bribe to 
Supervisor Fred Nicholas began immediately after the 
holidays, following the Ruef trials. The trial brought 
into play all the machinery of the opposition at its worst 
to the prosecution. At all points the defense was 
carried on on a larger scale than at the former trials. 
There were more and better lawyers employed by the 
defendant; there were more thugs in evidence in the 
courtroom; there was greater activity on the part of 
the detectives, spies and agents engaged to meet the 
efforts of the men working under Detective Burns. 

Due largely to the activity of this army of opposition 
to the prosecution, the weakness of the methods of 
enforcing the criminal law was emphasized even more 
than at the other trials, and the defects shown up more 
glaringly. 

To secure a jury to try Ruef, for example, 1450 
talesmen were called. This was regarded as a record. 
But before a jury had been secured to try Calhoun 
2370 veniremen had been called into court, and no 
less than 922 examined. Thus, for every juror who sat 
at the Calhoun trial, 197 talesmen were called, and 
seventy-seven were questioned by the attorneys. 

The estimated number of words contained in the 
transcript of the examination of these talesmen was 



The Calhoun Trial 389 

in millions. To conduct this examination three months 
were required. The securing of a jury to try Ruef 
occupied the time of the court for two months only. 
But it must be noted that the securing of the Calhoun 
and the Ruef juries occupied five months — to try charges 
contained in two indictments, whereas in all the graft 
cases 160 indictments had been brought. 

The defendants who preceded Calhoun to trial had 
an army of attorneys to represent them. But Calhoun's 
line of legal representatives was quite double that of 
any of his fellow graft defendants who had been caught 
in the prosecution drag-net. 

Prominent in Mr. Calhoun's defense appeared A. A. 
Moore, Stanley Moore, Lewis F. Byington, Earl Rogers, 
J. J. Barrett and Alexander King, supported by the 
giant of the California bar, Garret McEnerney. That 
the master mind of Garret McEnerney was directing 
many of the graft defense cases had been intimated 
from time to time, but there is no question about Mc- 
Enerney's part in the defense of Calhoun. 

And opposed to the strongest men of the California 
bar, The People had two representatives. One of 
them, Heney, was serving without pay, was still a sick 
man not having fully recovered from his wound in- 
flicted but a few months before, and worn out from 
the continued effort of a three-years' fight to get at the 
root of municipal corruption in San Francisco. The 
second, a regularly employed Deputy District Attorney, 
John J. O'Gara, was receiving $300 a month for his 
services. It is not unlikely that some of the best of 
the attorneys for the defense, for defending Mr. Cal- 
houn, received as much in a day. Compared with the 



390 The Calhoun Trial 

army of lawyers for the defense, the representation of 
The People was pitifully small. 

Through the long, grueling contest of the trial, last- 
ing for five months and eight days, 423 Heney and 
O'Gara were kept under constant strain, while the de- 
fendant's attorneys relieved one another when their 
labors became irksome. 

The bulk of the hammering and of the technical 
quibbling was directed against Heney. Heney, still 
suffering from the effects of his wound, received at 
the Ruef trial, worn-out, over-worked, harassed in the 
public prints, would at times become thoroughly ex- 
asperated. Every indication of impatience on his part, 
or of temper, was made subject of attack in the op- 
posing newspapers. 424 These attacks, long persisted in, 
did their part in the general campaign to weary the 
public with the prosecution, and undermine confidence 
in Heney. 

The examination of talesmen for jury service showed 
the results of this long-continued campaign. Many 
talesmen announced their sympathy with the defendants, 
and deplored the prosecution, which they appeared to 

423 From January 12, 1909, to June 20, 1909. 

424 Earl Rogers showed himself particularly clever at goading. 
His ability in this line was shown to advanatge also, at the trial 
of Clarence Darrow, charged with jury fixing at Los Angeles, whom 
Rogers defended. The Fresno Republican in comparing the two 
cases said, in its issue of July 12, 1912: "When Heney tilted, as 
prosecutor against Earl Rogers as an apologist for crime, he was 
the 'wild man of Borneo,' to the more staid and polished mem- 
bers of the San Francisco bar. But now that Fredericks and 
Ford, prosecutors of Los Angeles, lost their tempers under the 
goadings of this same Rogers in the Darrow case, nothing is said 
about the wild man of Borneo. Fredericks and Ford, unlike 
Heney, are recognized as the socially elect of the profession, but 
Heney in the wildest excitement of the Calhoun trials, never tried 
to throw an ink bottle at Rogers, as Ford tried to do the other day. 
Plainly, as a matter of social etiquette, it depends upon whose ox 
Rogers gores." 



The Calhoun Trial 391 

believe had brought shame upon and injured the city. 
Some went so far as to call the prosecution of Calhoun 
an outrage. 425 Others intimated that the giving of 
bribe money might have been justifiable. 426 Such ex- 
pressions, coming from men of average intelligence and 
ordinarily law-abiding, showed conclusively that the 
persistent efforts of the defense to poison the public 
mind against the prosecution was at last bringing results. 
But after months of effort a jury was secured to 
hear the case and the trial began. 

425 See footnote 269. 

426 The Chronicle, as early as July 10, 1907, punctured the the- 
ory that the bribing- of public servants is justifiable. 

The Chronicle said: "In the examination of a talesman in 
Judge Lawlor's court on Monday an attorney for the defendant 
charged with the crime of bribing city officials made the statement 
that San Francisco is divided on the subject of punishing men 
who have committed the offense named. He said: 'You know, of 
course, that San Francisco is divided on this graft question. Half 
in favor of the prosecution, and, say, half contrary minded.' Pos- 
sibly he believes that this is true, but there is absolutely no foun- 
dation for the assumption. There is no evidence on which to base 
such a statement, and it would not have been made if there was 
any possibility of determining its truth or falsity by some simple 
test. 

"It is doubtless true that there are plenty of men in this com- 
munity who regard the crime of bribery lightly, and are ready to 
defend it on the ground that laxity in the conduct of municipal 
affairs made it necessary to resort to it or abandon all enterprise. 
But the great majority of citizens take the sound view that both 
briber and bribed are equally guilty and equally deserving of pun- 
ishment, and utterly refuse to accept the excuse that the corpora- 
tions which have been systematically debauching city officials were 
forced to that course. They know that the eager desire to secure 
advantages is at the bottom of the corrupt condition of our 
municipal affairs, and they feel that unless examples can be made 
of those who have shown a willingness to profit by the greed and 
turpitude of those elected to office the practice of bribing will be 
again resumed and continued as long as there is anything to be 
gained by the pursuit of criminal methods. 

"Even if it were true that the community is evenly divided it 
would be outrageous to plead that fact as a justification for the 
commission of criminal acts. If San Francisco should be so lost 
to shame that nine-tenths of her population regarded bribery with 
tolerance, it would be no less a crime, but there would be infin- 
itely more reason for striving to punish offenders of that charac- 
ter to save the city from the moral degradation involved in the 
acceptance of the idea that it is excusable to defy the laws by 
debauching public officials." 

At the time of Calhoun's trial, however, The Chronicle read 
talesmen who sided with the defense no such lecture. 



392 The Calhoun Trial 

Heney, in his opening statement to the jury, set 
forth the prosecution expected to prove that Ruef au- 
thorized James L. Gallagher to offer the bribe to Super- 
visor Nicholas ; that Ruef afterwards gave the money 
to Gallagher to pay Nicholas; that Calhoun authorized 
Ruef, either through Tirey L. Ford, or personally, or 
both, to make the offer to Gallagher and to authorize 
Gallagher to make the offer to Nicholas. 

The prosecution showed by Gallagher that the offer 
had been made to Nicholas and to every member of the 
Board of Supervisors with the exception of Rea. In 
this, Gallagher was corroborated by the Supervisors. 
Not only had the offer been made, but the bribe money 
had been paid. 

Gallagher testified that he had received $85,000 
from Ruef to be distributed among the Supervisors for 
their votes which gave the United Railroads its over- 
bead trolley permit, and that, after keeping out $15,000 
for himself, he had distributed the money among them, 
giving to Supervisor Nicholas $4000 of the amount. 

Supervisor Nicholas testified that Gallagher had 
offered him the bribe and had paid him the money. 

By the officials of the United States Mint, the 
prosecution showed that $200,000, about the time of the 
bribery, had been turned over to General Tirey L. 
Ford, on order from Mr. Calhoun. The $200,000 could 
not be accounted for by the available books of the 
United Railroads. Ruef and Ford were shown to have 
been in close touch with each other during the period. 427 

But nobody could be found who had seen Ford pass 
$200,000 to Mr. Ruef. 

427 See Chapter XV, "The Ford Trials." 



The Calhoun Trial 393 

Here was, perhaps, a weak link in the prosecution's 
chain of evidence. 

Mr. Calhoun did not, however, put General Ford on 
the stand to tell what he did with the money. Neither 
did Mr. Calhoun put Mr. Ruef on the stand to testify 
as to the source of the $85,000 which Ruef gave to 
Gallagher to pay the Supervisors for their votes by 
which the trolley permit was awarded to the United 
Railroads. 

But, however weak the link between Ford and Ruef, 
there was no weakness in the link between Calhoun 
and Ford. By evidence that could not be disputed, the 
prosecution showed that Ford got $200,000 through 
Calhoun. 

Frank A. Leach, Director of the United States 
Mint at San Francisco, testified that Calhoun, with 
General Ford, had called upon him at the Mint some- 
time between May 22 and May 24, 1906. 428 Calhoun 
called, Leach testified, to ascertain how $200,000, which 
had been transferred from the East to his credit. 429 

428 The trolley-permit was granted May 21, 1906. 

429 The letter placing $200,000 to Calhoun's credit read as fol- 
lows: 

"Treasury Department, Washington, May 22, 1906. Superin- 
tendent of the United States Mint, San Francisco, Cal. Sir: Con- 
firmation is certified to a telegram sent you this day, in sub- 
stance as follows: 

" 'Pay to Patrick Calhoun, President United Railroads, $200,000; 
to Lachman and Jacobi, $12,500; to Beech Thompson, $20,000; to 
Canadian Bank of Commerce, $250,000; on account of original cer- 
tificates of deposit Nos. 5251, 5252, 5253 and 5267, issued by the 
Assistant Treasurer of the United States, New York city. In all 
amounting to $482,500. 

" 'Pay to master California Lodge, Number 1, A. F. and A. M., 
$319.65 on account of original certificate of deposit No. 112, issued 
by the Assistant Treasurer of the United States, Chicago.' Re- 
spectfully, 

"CHARLES H. TREAT, 
"Treasurer of the United States." 



394 The Calhoun Trial 

could be drawn out in certain sums in favor of such 
persons as he might designate. 

Leach testified he had furnished Calhoun with the 
desired information. 

Ford afterwards appeared at the Mint with an order 
from Mr. Calhoun for $50,000, 430 which was paid to 
him. Later, Calhoun telegraphed to Leach from Cleve- 
land, Ohio, to pay Ford a second $50,000; and still 
later the $100,000 remaining. 431 

The Mint officials paid Ford the money in accord- 
ance with Mr. Calhoun's directions. Mr. Calhoun of- 
fered no evidence to show why this considerable sum 
was paid to General Ford, or what General Ford was 
supposed to have done with it. Mr. Calhoun, when the 
last of the $200,000 had been turned over to General 
Ford, had given Mr. Leach a receipt 432 in full for the 
amount. 

But what was quite as extraordinary as this direct 
evidence against Mr. Calhoun was the offer of the 
District Attorney to meet the defense's charges and 
insinuations against the prosecution. Rudolph Spreck- 



430 The telegrams directing the money to be paid Ford read: 
"Cleveland, Ohio, July 28, 06. Hon. Frank A. Leach, Superin- 
tendent U. S. Mint, San Francisco. Please pay to Tirey L. Ford, 
or order, fifty thousand dollars and charge same to my account. 
Patrick Calhoun, President United Railroads of San Francisco." 

431 Calhoun's order placing the $100,000 to Ford's credit read as 
follows: 

"Cleveland, Ohio, August 21, 06. Hon. Frank A. Leach, Super- 
intendent United States Mint, San Francisco. Please pay to Gen- 
eral Tirey L. Ford, or order, one hundred thousand dollars, and 
charge the same to my account. Patrick Calhoun, President United 
Railroads, San Francisco." 

432 Calhoun's final receipt for the $200,000 was as follows: 
"Received from Frank A. Leach, Superintendent U. S. Mint, two 

hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) on c/d No. 5251, with Asst. 
Treasurer U. S., New York. PATRICK CALHOUN, 

"President United Railroads." 



The Calhoun Trial 395 

els was called to the stand. The attorneys for the 
defense were invited to ask him any questions they 
saw fit. 

"From the time we attempted to impanel this jury," 
said Heney, in extending this invitation, "the attorneys 
for the defendant have been attempting to try Rudolph 
Spreckels, James D. Phelan and God knows who else. 
By insinuations they have been endeavoring to get into 
the mind of this jury the idea that Mr. Spreckels was 
back of this prosecution for malicious purposes and 
for gain, for profit, to get hold of the United Railroads. 
I told them when they were making those insinuations 
that I proposed to throw down the bars to them; that 
I proposed to force them to the proof; that I would 
put the witnesses upon the stand and would not object 
to a single question asked them. 

"The witness, Spreckels, is now upon the stand, and 
we won't object to their asking him anything on earth, 
from the time he was born down to the present day, 
to the present minute." 

One of the most frequent charges which had been 
made against the prosecution was that it had expended 
money wrongfully. Rogers asked for a statement of 
the prosecution's receipts and disbursements. 

Mr. Spreckels announced his willingness to account 
for every dollar expended, but refused, until he should 
be directed by the Court, to give the names of the con- 
tributors to the fund. 433 



433 "I want to protect those (the contributors) whom I prom- 
ised to protect in this matter," said Spreckels. "Outside of that, 
the matter is entirely an open matter; I have no concern in it." — 
See Spreckels's testimony, Transcript of evidence in the matter of 
The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, Page 3385. 



396 The Calhoun Trial 

"Will you," broke in Heney addressing Calhoun's 
lawyers, "produce an itemized account of moneys ex- 
pended in the defense of these matters?" 

"I beg your pardon?" questioned Rogers. 

"I say," said Heney, "will you produce an itemized 
account of moneys expended in opposition to these 
prosecutions ?" 

The defense did not seize this opportunity to clear 
itself of the not unreasonable suspicion that money had 
been used to influence jurors to vote for acquittals ; to 
get witnesses out of the State; to corrupt agents of the 
prosecution; and perhaps to attempt murder. On the 
contrary, the attorneys for the defense denounced Mr. 
Heney's suggestion as "misconduct." 

Mr. Spreckels stated his willingness to furnish item- 
ized statement of the prosecution's expenditures. This 
he did. Furthermore, he submitted himself to rigorous 
cross-examination regarding the items of his account. 
But the clever attorneys for the defense uncovered 
nothing upon which charge of wrongful expenditure or 
questionable methods could be based. 434 

The charge that Spreckels had engaged in the Graft 
Prosecution to injure the United Railroads came to as 
sorry an ending. By competent witnesses it was shown 
that the prosecution had been planned, and the prelim- 
inary work done, before the bribe-money in the trolley 
deal had passed. Furthermore, it was shown that 
Spreckels had offered to assist Calhoun to have the 
time of his franchises extended, if such extension were 



434 The statement in full of the expenditures of the prosecu- 
tion, as shown in the transcript of the Calhoun trial, will be 
found on page xxxiv of the Appendix. 



The Calhoun Trial 397 

necessary for practical installation of the conduit electric 
system, asking only that the unsightly poles and over- 
head wires be not inflicted upon the city. It was only 
when Calhoun, dealing with a Board of Supervisors sus- 
pected of corruption, showed conclusively that he pro- 
posed to install an over-head trolley system, whether 
the people wanted it or not, that Spreckels and his asso- 
ciates organized their traction company. It was shown 
that the object of the organizers of the company was 
to demonstrate that the conduit system was practical 
for San Francisco. And, finally, the articles of in- 
corporation under which the company proposed to oper- 
ate, provided for the transfer under equitable arrange- 
ments of the proposed new lines to the city, should the 
city wish at any time to take them over. Mr. Spreckels 
and his associates were shown not to have had desire 
or inclination to engage in the street-car business. But 
it was shown that they proposed to fight for what they 
considered the best interests of the city of their birth 
and residence. 

Another frequently-made charge had been that Heney 
was the attorney for Rudolph Spreckels, directing a 
privately-conducted prosecution. 435 As a matter of fact, 



435 The charge of private prosecution was raised early. The 
Chronicle of May 14, 1907, printed as part of Ford's statement why 
he did not testify before the Grand Jury, the following: 

"The private interests that are behind this attack upon the 
officers of the United Railroads have free access to this juryroom 
through their chosen counsel who has assumed to exercise all the 
official authority of the District Attorney of this city and who, bj' 
reason of the exercise of such authority, has become the legal 
counsellor and guide of this Grand Jury. 

"The officers of the United Railroads are not unmindful of the 
tremendous power for harm that lies in this unusual and extraord- 
inary situation. 

"They, therefore, protest against the consideration by this 
Grand Jury of any evidence whose legality and sufficiency cannot 



398 



The Calhoun Trial 



Langdon, and not Heney, headed the prosecution, and 
Langdon let it be known at all times that he was the 
final arbitrator in all questions growing out of the 
prosecution. And at no time did he fail to assert 
himself. But at the Calhoun trial, the fishing expedi- 
tions in which the defense indulged, brought the facts 
out convincingly that Heney, far from being in Spreck- 
els' employ, or directly or indirectly receiving money 
from him for graft-prosecution services, or any other 
services, was giving his time to the city, without reward 
or hope of reward. 

Thus, point by point, the allegations which the graft 
defense had for three years been making against the 
prosecution, were shown to be without foundation in 
fact. The bars were down, as Heney put it. Rudolph 
Spreckels and others who had made the prosecution 
possible, were under oath, and were prepared to answer 
any question that might be put to them. The ablest 

be judicially determined from a full, complete and correct tran- 
script thereof. 

"Second — The subpoena by which my attendance here was 
compelled was not only insufficient in both form and substance, 
but was served by a privately employed detective who is not a 
citizen of California and who is employed and paid by private 
interests notoriously hostile to the United Railroads. 

"Third — There is here present a person not permitted by the 
laws of this State to be present, namely, an attorney nominally 
representing the office of the District Attorney, while, in fact, rep- 
resenting private interests in no manner connected officially with 
any of the governmental affairs of this city and State. 

"Fourth — I am the general counsel and legal adviser of the 
United Railroads and its officers, and whatever knowledge I pos- 
sess of any of the affairs of the United Railroads or of its offi- 
cers, has come to me in professional confidence and, under the 
law of this State, every attorney is compelled to keep inviolate, 
and at every peril to himself, preserve the secrets of his clients. 

"Fifth — Under the statement of the representative of the Dis- 
trict Attorney's office in attendance before this Grand Jury, I feel 
it my duty to stand with the officers of the United Railroads upon 
my constitutional rights, and the District Attorney knows that he 
cannot in these proceedings compel me to testify, and he also 
knows that no unfavorable inference is permitted to be drawn 
from our declination in this regard." 



The Calhoun Trial 399 

lawyers, cunning in cross-examination, selected, indeed, 
for their craft and skill in searching out the innermost 
secrets of witnesses, were there to question. 

But not one statement reflecting upon the purposes 
of the prosecution, nor of its motives, nor of its meth- 
ods, was brought out. The graft defense, free to ques- 
tion as it would, was unable to justify the insinuations 
of baseness of purpose and method; nor to justify its 
loosely-made charges against the prosecution. 436 

Indeed, the attorneys for Mr. Calhoun even resisted 
full discussion of Mr. Spreckels' motives. 

The intimation, so broad as to approach positive 
declaration, had been made repeatedly that Mr. Spreck- 
els had inaugurated the graft prosecution for the pur- 
pose of injuring Mr. Calhoun and the properties which 
he represented — the United Railroads. On re-direct 
examination, Mr. Spreckels was asked by the attorney 
for the State whether, at the time he had first discussed 
investigation of graft conditions in San Francisco with 
Mr. Heney, he had had any idea of investigating Mr. 
Calhoun. Mr. Barrett, representing the defendant, 
strongly objected to this line of questioning. 437 

After a wrangle between the attorneys as to the 
matter of the witness's motives, Spreckels was permitted 
to make a brief statement to the Court. 

"My motives," he said, "have been inquired into, 
and I have indicated to Mr. Rogers (Calhoun's attor- 



436 One of the most complete answers to the charges scattered 
nation-wide by the Graft Defense, came from Dean John H. Wig- 
more of the Northwestern School of Law at Chicago, author of 
Wigmore on Evidence. (See footnote 283.) 

437 See transcript of testimony, The People vs. Patrick Cal- 
houn, No. 1436, page 3723. 



400 The Calhoun Trial 

ney) that as far as I am concerned the bars are abso- 
lutely down; I am willing to take the judgment of this 
community as to motives, as to my purposes and as to 
the truthfulness of my statements made here." 

Mr. Spreckels was finally permitted to answer the 
question. He answered in the negative. 438 

The defendant placed no witnesses on the stand. 
The explanation of their peculiar position which the 
United Railroads officials were looked upon to make 
when opportunity offered was not made. The denials 
which they had for three years been indignantly making 
through the newspapers were not stated under oath. 439 

438 Mr. Spreckels finally testified on this point as follows: 
"Mr. Heney. Q. At the time that Mr. Phelan agreed to con- 
tribute the $10,000, Mr. Spreckels, what did you say, if anything, 
about contributing yourself? A. That was in the first meeting, 
I think, Mr. Heney, and I told him that I was ready and willing 
to contribute a similar amount; that I believed it would be possi- 
ble to get others to join and contribute. 

"Q. At that time was anything said by any person about pros- 
ecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. Absolutely no. 

"Q. Or any person connected with the United Railroads Com- 
pany? A. The discussion was entirely confined to the administra- 
tion, the corrupt administration as we termed it. 

"Q. At that time did you have any purpose or intention of 
prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. I had not. 

"Q. Did you have any reason to believe that Mr. Calhoun at 
that time had committed any crime? A. I had no indication of 
such a crime. 

"Mr. Moore. Was that time fixed, Mr. Heney? 

"Mr. Heney. Yes, it was fixed; the first conversation, and he 
has fixed it as nearly as he could. 

"The Court. Have you in mind the testimony on that point, 
Mr. Moore? There was some reference to it in an earlier part of 
the examination. 

"Mr. Heney. Q. When you had the talk with Mr. Heney in 
April, 1906, did you say anything about prosecuting Mr. Calhoun, 
or anybody connected with the United Railroads? A. I did not. 

"Q. Did you all any time tell Mr. Heney, that you desired to 
have him piosecute Mr. Patrick Calhoun? A. I did not, at any 
time. 

"Q. Did you tell him at any time that you desired to have him 
prosecute any person connected with the United Railroads Com- 
pany? A. I did not." 

439 The Chronicle in its issue of March 19, 1907, the day after 
the story of corruption of Supervisors was made public, refers to 
the denials of United Railroads officials as follows: 

"Weeks ago, when the first charges of a corruption fund was 



The Calhoun Trial 401 

The trial resulted in a disagreement. According to 
published statements, purporting to come from mem- 
bers of the jury, on the first ballot four jurors stood 
for conviction, eight for acquittal; on the second, nine 
for acquittal, three for conviction. On all the other 
ballots the jurors stood ten for acquittal and two for 
conviction. 440 



published, Patrick Calhoun issued from his New York offices a 
typewritten statement, equivalent to about three-fourths of a 
Chronicle column, in which he announced: 

" 'I have just seen the San Francisco papers, in which vague 
charges are made that the United Railroads of San Francisco paid 
or caused to be paid $700,000 for a permit to use electricity on the 
roads that it formerly operated with cable. There is no foundation 
for this rumor. The United Railroads of San Francisco never paid 
or authorized any one to pay on its behalf a single dollar to the 
Mayor, Supervisors or any public official of the city of San Fran- 
cisco or the State of California.' 

"Late last night the following additional denial was issued from 
the office of the United Railroads: 

" 'I am authorized to state in the most positive way that neither 
Mr. Calhoun nor any officer of the United Railroads ever paid or 
authorized anyone to pay one dollar to any official. 

'THORNWELL MULLALLT, 
'Assistant to the President United Railroads.' ". 

440 The following statement was published over the name of 
Otto T. Hildebrecht, one of the two jurors who had voted to 
convict: 

"As soon as we entered the jury room, I overheard a crowd of 
the jurors in the rear of the hall shouting 'Acquit! Acquit!' We 
then proceeded to name a foreman. This matter disposed of, the 
members began balloting. 

"In the first half hour three ballots were cast. On the first vote 
it stood 8 to 4 for acquittal. On the second ballot Maguire suc- 
cumbed to the pressure. I called upon him for his reasons for 
changing his vote and he replied: 'Oh, these corrupt conditions 
have always prevailed in San Francisco. The Supervisors in this 
case are no different from the other men, who have filled those 
offices. It will always be like that.' To combat this attitude on 
Maguire's part, I stated, 'Well, it is time to stamp out the crimes 
in this, city. In order that the evil may be corrected we must 
put a stop to it.' This seemed to have no weight with Maguire. 

"The next ballot showed that Anthes had gone over to the 
others. From him I secured this information: 'Oh, why I always 
vote with the majority.' I said, 'Why, how can an honest man 
take that view of the matter?' I have taken an oath and at that 
time announced that I would try this case solely on the evidence. 

"It is plainly pointed out in the testimony of Sanderson that 
Calhoun was present when Ruef said, 'This thing will go through 
on Monday. It is all settled.' This produced no impression upon 
the others, although I argued that such testimony alone proved 
Calhoun's guilty knowledge of the plan to put the deal through 



402 The Calhoun Trial 

Immediately after announcement of the verdict, 441 
the District Attorney attempted to bring Calhoun to 
trial for the alleged offering of a bribe to Supervisor 

when he remarked in answer to Sanderson's query, 'Then you 
won't need me?' *I don't think we do.' 

"I then asked the other jurors to come into court, they con- 
tending that Ruef had carried on the conversation with Sanderson 
and that Calhoun was an innocent witness. We asked to have 
this testimony revealed and the jurors filed into court. Upon 
returning to the jury room we renewed our deliberations. 

"The other ten jurors came at Binner and myself and sought to 
induce me to stretch my imagination to the end that Calhoun had 
paid the money to Ruef, but only as a fee. They acknowledged 
right there that Calhoun had paid over the money but they argued 
that he didn't know that the money was going to be used as a 
bribe to the Supervisors, — only as a fee to Ruef. After that I knew 
that these men had purposely taken the wrong view of the whole 
matter. I had called them to account for the remarks that the 
testimony throughout the case was all purchased and that Heney 
had held the whip over the Supervisors. Thereupon they backed 
down on that stand and made their whole plea on the ground that 
Calhoun had given the trolley money to Ruef as a fee. 

"I disagreed on the ground that Heney, Spreckels and the other 
members of the prosecution were not on trial as they insisted, and 
that the other matters, such as the theft of reports and suppres- 
sion of testimony, had only been touched upon during the trial to 
prove that Calhoun knew that the bribery deal had been carried 
through. 

" 'Can't you give Calhoun the benefit of the doubt, that he paid 
this money as a fee?' was the burden of the others' argument. 'I 
would be willing to extend him every chance,' I replied, 'but why 
has he not introduced these vouchers of the United Railroads in 
court, then we might see what was paid to bribe the juries in the 
Ford trials.' After this they dropped me like a red-hot stove. I 
seemed to have struck home. It was a terrifying ordeal to stand 
off these ten men for twelve hours, but, I held firmly to my course 
and voted throughout upon my conscience. I should have been 
ashamed to have lifted my head in the future had I fallen down 
and voted for an acquittal. When the deputy, Mr. Coyle, called to 
convey the word to Judge Lawlor as to the clearness of an agree- 
ment being reached, I met him at the door that night. 'We shall 
never reach an agreement,' I replied, 'unless these men come over 
to my side. That I fear shall never come to pass.' The claim has 
been made in the Globe that I asked for a secret ballot. That is 
an untruth, as is the statement that I am a Socialist. Not that 
I am opposed to Socialism, but I have never been inclined to their 
views. Our political outlooks differ. When I told Coyle that there 
was no chance of a verdict being reached, the other jurors, one of 
those standing alongside of me, punched me in the ribs in an effort 
to make me shut up, as they figured that they ought to be able to 
convince me. I nave received letters from all over the State; 
friends and acquaintances, even utter strangers, congratulating me 
upon my stand in the Calhoun case and my vote for conviction." 

441 Calhoun, after the disagreement of the jury that tried him, 
issued a statement to the press in which he bitterly denounced 
those who were responsible for the prosecution, and hinted at 
retaliation. He continued to insist that Heney was a corrupt offl- 



The Calhoun Trial 403 

John J. Furey. This the defense resisted. The com- 
munity was filled with the suggestion that the Calhoun 
jury, having failed to agree, the costly graft trials 
should be brought to an end. 442 

Nevertheless, Calhoun's second trial was begun. But 
before a jury could be secured, Francis J. Heney had 
been defeated for election as District Attorney. This 

cial: "There lies in the courtroom," said Calhoun, "forty checks 
made by Mr. Rudolph Spreckels to Mr. Francis J. Heney sinc« his 
alleged appointment as Assistant District Attorney. Those checks 
were deposited in the American National Bank to his private 
account. They aggregate $23,800. The first of them amounted to 
$4,900. They are the price of his infamy. He can not escape the 
fact that he is a corrupt public official by the contention that he 
has been engaged in a holy crusade. He can not defend the 
acceptance of money from a private citizen for the express pur- 
pose of enabling him to devote himself exclusively to the so-called 
Graft Prosecution without committing, the crime of accepting a 
bribe. I here make the formal and specific charge that Francis J. 
Heney stands side by side with James L. Gallagher as a corrupt 
public official. I charge him with having accepted bribes and I 
also charge Rudolph Spreckels and James D. Phelan with having 
given him the bribes; and if we can get a fair District Attorney in 
the city of San Francisco I propose at the proper time and in the 
proper way to submit formal charges against Heney for having 
received bribes and Spreckels and Phelan for having paid them." 

Of Calhoun's threat of prosecution, The Call in its issue of 
June 22, 1909, said: 

"In that soiled and motley retinue of strikers and heelers, jury 
fixers and gaspipe men that the head of the United Railroads has 
gathered about him were many who made it a business to pro- 
claim that when the indictments came to the test of fact in court 
the disposition of that $200,000 would be explained as a perfectly 
innocent matter in the simplest possible manner. How these prom- 
ises have been fulfilled we know. The mystery of that $200,000 
remains as dark as ever. Not even the stockholders of the com- 
pany are invited into the confidence of its president. It is not 
now the question, Where did he get it? but What did he do with 
it? 

"As long as that question remains unanswered by or for Cal- 
houn and as long as he refuses to undergo cross examination and 
the ordinary legal tests of proof, just so long will the whole Amer- 
ican public believe him guilty of bribery. As for his threat of 
some sort of vague legal proceedings against the prosecutors, that 
will merely provoke a laugh, as men do laugh at a cheap and ob- 
vious bluff." 

442 The free press, not only of California but of the entire 
nation, protested against such a course. "San Francisco," said the 
Pittsburgh Times-Gazette, "owes it to the nation to continue her 
fight against the big grafters of that town. If she lets up now 
the grafters the country over will take heart, and the next time 
it becomes necessary to go after the tribe, it will be more difficult 
even than it has been in San Francisco to convict a briber." 



404 The Calhoun Trial 

meant the breaking down of the graft prosecution. 
The District Attorney consented to continuance of the 
case until the new administration should take charge. 
The case was not pressed by Mr. Langdon's successor, 
and finally, with the other graft charges, was dismissed. 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

The San Francisco Election of 1909. 

Scarcely had the disagreeing jury in the Calhoun 
case been discharged than the Graft Prosecution was 
again called upon to meet the graft defense at the 
polls. Langdon's second term was to expire the follow- 
ing January. His successor was to be elected in No- 
vember. 

Mr. Langdon refused positively to be a candidate to 
succeed himself. The supporters of the prosecution 
turned to Heney as the most available candidate to 
oppose the elements united against them. 

Heney did not want to be a candidate. The gruel- 
ing contest of the Calhoun trial, coupled with the nerve- 
shattering effects of the wound in his head, had brought 
him to the point of physical and nervous breakdown. 
But it was demonstrated to him that he had the largest 
personal following in San Francisco; that the public 
had confidence in him ; that he must make the fight. 

And Heney, doubtful of his physical ability to con- 
tinue to the end of the primary and final campaigns, 
consented to become a candidate. 

There followed the most astonishing campaign for 
municipal office ever held in San Francisco, or probably 
in any other American city. 

California was at the time groping her way from 
the clutch of the Southern Pacific "machine." The 
California Legislature of 1909 had adjourned after a 



406 The San Francisco Election of 1909 

session which had ended largely in disappointing failure 
for the anti-machine element. The anti-machine ele- 
ment had been in slight majority, but it had blunderingly 
permitted the machine minority to organize both houses. 
As a result, the "machine" had been able to defeat the 
passage of many anti-machine — now known as progres- 
sive — measures. In other instances progressive meas- 
ures were before their passage, 443 in the face of the 
earnest but unavailable protest of the well-intentioned 
but unorganized anti-machine majority, loaded with 
hampering amendments. 

Two of these measures bore directly upon the San 
Francisco situation. The first measure provided for the 
Direct Primary. The second provided for the elimina- 
tion of the "party circle" from the election ballot. 

This last named measure, known as "the Party 
Circle bill," passed the Senate, but was defeated by one 
vote in the Assembly. The defeated measure was in- 
tended to restore the Australian ballot to its original 
simplicity and effectiveness. 444 

Under the machine's tinkering of the State's elec- 
tion laws, the Australian ballot had become a device for 
encouraging partisan voting. The "party circle" was 
placed at the head of the column of party candidates. 
A cross placed in the circle registered a vote for every 
candidate nominated by the party designated by the 
circle. The question of "distinguishing marks" invali- 



443 See "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," Chapters 
VIII, IX, X, XI. 

444 This reform was accomplished at the Legislative session of 
1 nil. The undesirable provisions were also stricken by amendment 
from the Direct. Primary law. See "Story of the California Legis- 
lature of 1911." 



The San Francisco Election of 1909 407 

dating entire ballots was ruled upon so closely by the 
State courts, that many voters voted by means of the 
one cross in the party circle to avoid the risk of having 
their entire ballot denied counting because of technical 
defects that might creep in if a divided ticket were 
voted. Had the "Party Circle bill" become a law it 
would have eliminated the "party circle" from the ballot, 
leaving the voter to select individual candidates of his 
choice. The one Assembly vote that defeated this 
measure after it had passed the Senate, went far toward 
bringing the San Francisco Graft Prosecution to an end. 
The Direct Primary measure was not defeated, nor 
did the machine element succeed in amending it into 
complete ineffectiveness. The anti-machine Republicans 
and Democrats, by joining in non-partisan caucus on 
this measure, succeeded in forcing the passage of the 
Direct Primary bill, but they were not able to keep it 
free of defects. Harassed by the machine at every turn, 
the anti-machine Senators and Assemblymen were com- 
pelled to accept many undesirable provisions. 4 * 5 

445 "Before voting on this matter," (the Direct Primary pro- 
visions) said Senator Stetson, an anti-machine leader in explain- 
ing his vote, "lest any one in the future may think that I have 
been passed something and didn't know it, I wish to explain my 
vote, and wish to say that this permission accorded a candidate to 
go on record to support that candidate for United States Senate, 
who shall have the endorsement of the greatest number of dis- 
tricts, comes from nobody and goes to nobody. It means nothing 
— mere words — idle words. The only way in which a candidate 
could have been pledged would have been to provide a pledge or 
instructions to the Legislature. The words 'shall be permitted' 
mean nothing and get nowhere. I shall vote for this report, not 
because I want to, but because I have to if we are at this session 
to have any Direct Primary law at all." 

Senator Stetson was referring particularly to the section which 
denied the people by state-wide vote the right to indicate their 
preference for United States Senator, but his words would have 
applied as directly and as truly to other sections of the measure. 

Other good government Senators did, as a matter of fact, de- 
nounce the very partisan clause which later contributed so largely 
to Heney's defeat. Senators Campbell, Holohan and Miller, for 



408 The San Francisco Election of 1909 

One of these provisions bore directly upon the San 
Francisco election of 1909, and contributed to a large 
extent to the outcome. 

This clause required a primary candidate to make 
affidavit giving "the name of his party and that of the 
office for which he desires to be a candidate ; that he 
affiliated with said party at the last preceding general 
election, and either that he did not vote thereat or 
voted for a majority of the candidates of said party at 
said next preceding general election, and intends to so 
vote at the ensuing election." 

At the time this section was under consideration, 
anti-machine legislators and the unhampered press 
pointed out that under it, District Attorney Langdon 
could not, in all probability, have been nominated nor 
•re-elected in 1907; that Mayor Taylor's election of that 
year would have been impracticable, if not impossible ; 
that Judge Dunne would have been hampered to the 
point of defeat in 1908 ; that under it, both in 1907 and 
1908, the so-called "higher-up" element in the field of 
corruption would have been given an advantage which 
the better citizenship of the community would have had 
difficulty in overcoming. 446 

But the machine element denounced these not un- 

example, while voting- for the bill, sent to the clerk's desk the 
following' explanation of their vote: 

"We voted for the Direct Primary bill because it seems to be 
the best law that can be obtained under existing political condi- 
tions. We are opposed to many of the features of this bill, and 
believe that the people at the first opportunity will instruct their 
representatives in the Legislature to radically amend the same in 
many particulars, notably in regard to the election of United States 
Senators, and the provisions that prevent the endorsement of a 
candidate by a political party or organization other than the one 
that first nominated such candidate." 

446 See files of Sacramento Bee for February and March, 1909, 
and Senate Journal for March 22, 1909, page 1976. 



The San Francisco Election of 1909 409 

reasonable objectors as "enemies of the Direct Primary 
bill," and under cover of the denunciation, and the 
fight for practical expression of popular choice for 
United States Senators, the objectionable clause was 
permitted to remain in the bill. 

No sooner had the Legislature adjourned than judi- 
cial interpretation of the partisan clause of the Direct 
Primary Act became necessary. The San Francisco 
primary election was at hand, and the partisan pro- 
visions of the new law proved the first snag which the 
various candidates encountered. 

Although the members of the Legislature, machine 
as well as anti-machine, voted for the bill, believing 
that the partisan clause restricted primary nominations 
to members of the party of the candidates' affiliation, 
the San Francisco Election Commissioners held there 
was nothing in the law to prevent the name of a Re- 
publican appearing on the Democratic ticket, or of a 
Democrat on the Republican ticket, provided the can- 
didate made affidavit of the party of his affiliation. 

Under this ruling it appeared that, in spite of the 
objectionable partisan provision of the Direct Primary 
law, the San Francisco election could be held on the 
non-partisan basis which had resulted in the election 
of Taylor and Langdon two years before. The one 
issue before the San Francisco electors v/as continuance 
of the Graft Prosecution. The supporters of the prose- 
cution, Republicans as well as Democrats, desired to 
vote for Heney. McCarthy was the avowed Labor 
Union party candidate for Mayor. The Union Labor 
party was considering the nomination for District At- 



zj-io The San Francisco Election of 1909 

torney of Charles M. Fickert. The prospects were 
good that Heney would receive the Republican and 
Democratic nominations, as Langdon had two years 
before. He was supported by the better element of 
both parties, and opposed by the anti-prosecution ele- 
ment of both. This opposition found expression in the 
Republican party in a committee of twenty-five, at the 
head of which was I. W. Hellman, Jr., of the Union 
Trust Company. 447 The better element of the party 
planned the nomination of Heney, as did the better 
element of Democrats. 

On a non-partisan basis, such as had prevailed in 
1907, the Union Labor party would have nominated 
McCarthy for Mayor, and Fickert for District Attorney, 
while the anti-machine, pro-prosecution Democrats and 
Republicans would have nominated a strong candidate 
for Mayor, and Heney for District Attorney. 

Conditions were thus shaping themselves admirably 
for continuance of the non-partisan administration of 
municipal affairs, which had at least blocked corruption, 
even though it had not beaten down the barriers of 



447 The Union Trust Company loaned $175,000 to the Calkins' 
Syndicate, which published papers in opposition to the prosecution. 
For the curious circumstances under which the loan was made, 
see footnote 275, page 257. The Union Trust Company officials 
were among- the most effective opponents of the prosecution, and 
most persistent in circulating- the story that the prosecution hurt 
business. The head of the institution, I. W. Hellman, Sr., returning 
early in August from a trip to Europe, when the 1909 campaign 
was opening, said in an interview, published in the Chronicle, 
August 4, 1909: "In New York I found that there is still a great 
difficulty in securing capital for San Francisco on account of the 
Graft Prosecution, or the 'graft persecution,' as they call it there. 
Of course, I do not know what changes have occurred in the situa- 
tion here since I left six months ago, but I had an interview with 
certain people in New York and I found that they were unwilling 
to send capital here as long as this 'graft persecution' was con- 
tinued." 



The San Francisco Election of 1909 411 

technicality, which stood between the corrupters of the 
municipal government and law-provided penalties. 

But this developing non-partisan arrangement was 
suddenly overturned in an opinion rendered by the 
Supreme Court, reversing the ruling of the Election 
Commissioners. 

The court held that the partisan provisions of the 
Direct Primary law prohibited the name of a primary 
candidate appearing upon any primary ticket except that 
of the party of the candidate's affiliations. 

Under this ruling, Fickert's name could not go on 
the Union Labor party primary ticket, for Fickert had 
affiliated with the Republican party. The Hellman com- 
mittee of twenty-five (Republican) immediately took up 
the Union Labor party candidate for District Attorney, 
whose name could not go on the Union Labor party 
primary ticket, Mr. Fickert being apparently quite as 
satisfactory to Mr. Hellman and his associates as he 
was to Mr. McCarthy. 

Heney, under the Supreme Court's ruling, found 
himself in a more difficult position. With other Califor- 
nia Progressives, Heney had in 1908 supported Taft 
for the Presidency. His political affiliations were there- 
fore, under the provisions of the Direct Primary law, 
Republican. His name could be placed on the Repub- 
lican primary ticket, but not on the Democratic. But it 
soon became evident that if his name went on the Re- 
publican ticket he would be defeated at the primaries. 

The registration of voters under their party designa- 
tion to enable them to vote at the partisan primaries 
showed an astonishing condition. The machine, anti- 



412 The San Francisco Election of 1909 

prosecution element was discovered to be massing its 
strength in the Republican party. Two years before, 
Daniel A. Ryan, the Republican candidate for Mayor, 
had received only 9255 votes in San Francisco, while 
Taylor, the Democratic candidate, had received 28,766, 
and McCarthy, Union Labor, 17,583. But for the 1909 
primaries, no less than 47,945 registered as Republicans, 
a gain of 38,609 over Ryan's vote, 448 while the Demo- 
cratic registration was 17,632 only, 11,134 less than 
Taylor's vote, and the Union Labor registration, 10,546, 
or 7037 less than McCarthy's vote in 1907. Heney's 
name could not go on the Democratic ballot. If he 
permitted it to go on the Republican ballot, the tre- 
mendous Republican registration indicated that the anti- 
machine Republicans would be outvoted by "machine" 
members of all parties who had registered as Republi- 
cans. 

By another provision of the election laws, Heney, 
should he be defeated at the primaries, could not become 
an independent candidate ; defeat at the primaries barred 
him from running at the final election. 

Heney was effectively shut out from participating as 
a primary candidate. And this, in face of the fact that 
the anti-machine Republicans and the anti-machine Dem- 
ocrats were striving to make him their candidate. 

Had the 1909 primary law prevailed in 1907, Lang- 
don's re-election could have been, and almost to a cer- 
tainty would have been blocked, and the Graft Prose- 
cution brought to an end two years before it was. 

448 Ryan did not receive his full party vote (see chapter XXI) 
while Taylor received the anti-machine vote of all parties. Never- 
theless, this does not account for the extent of the astonishing 
changes in registration. 



The San Francisco Election of 1909 413 

At the 1909 Primary election, Heney's name, al- 
though he was the choice of the anti-machine element 
of all parties, did not appear on any of the primary 
ballots. 449 Nevertheless, 4594 Republicans wrote Heney's 
name on their primary ballots. But this was not suffi- 
cient to give him the nomination. Fickert, whose name 
appeared on the Republican ballot, as a regular candi- 
date, received 12,480 votes, which gave him the Repub- 
lican nomination. 

On neither the Democratic nor Union Labor primary 
tickets did the name of any candidate for District At- 
torney appear. The McCarthy element urged that Fick- 
ert's name be written in by Union Labor party voters. 
They carried their point, Fickert being nominated by 
the Union Labor party by 3308 votes. But even here 
there was registered protest at what was going on. 
Union Labor party voters to the number of 617 wrote 
Heney's name on their ballots. 

In the same way, a determined effort was made to 
give Fickert the Democratic nomination also. He re- 
ceived 2298 votes. But the pro-prosecution Democrats 
rallied to Heney's support, and nominated him by a 
vote of 2386. Thus out of a total of 28,967 who voted 
for nomination of District Attorney, no less than 7597, 
or more than 25 per cent., wrote Heney's name on their 

449 It is interesting- to note that the politicians responsible for 
this condition, and who regarded Heney's position at the 1909 pri- 
maries with no attempt to conceal their amusement, were in 1912, 
loudest in their insistence that they had been disfranchised be- 
cause the names of Taft electors did not appear on the California 
election ballot at the 1912 election. It is also to be noted that 
their representations were based on misrepresentation. They could, 
under the 1911 election laws, had they had any intention of giving 
Taft genuine support in California, have placed the names on 
the ballot by petition, as was done in the case of the Roosevelt 
electors, who, lest their regular nomination be questioned, were 
also nominated by petition. 



414 The San Francisco Election of 1909 

ballots, in protest against the partisan conditions which 
made his regular nomination impractical. 

The law was new; the election, the first held in the 
State under the Direct Primary. It was difficult to 
make the electors understand they could vote to nominate 
Heney by writing his name on the ballot. Of the 38,385 
who voted at the primaries only 28,967 voted for Dis- 
trict Attorney. Unquestionably, a large percentage of 
those who did not vote at all, would have written 
Heney's name on the ballot had they known that such 
a course was permissible. But they did not know, and 
more than 25 per cent, of those voting did not vote for 
District Attorney. As the Rev. Charles N. Lathrop 
put it: "They have Heney sewed up in a bag, and the 
bag is the partisan features of the Direct Primary." 450 

Out of this confusing primary election, Fickert came 
with two party nominations, the Union Labor and the 
Republican, while Heney had one nomination, the Demo- 
cratic. This meant that Fickert's name would be printed 
twice on the final ballot under partisan designation, 
while Heney's would be printed but once. Thus, for 
every chance Heney had for a "party circle" vote Fick- 
ert had two. 

The prosecution forces had supported Byron Mauzy 



450 The California Legislature of 1911 corrected the features of 
the election laws which blocked free expression of the will of the 
electors. San Francisco, hy amendment of its charter, has since 
placed all municipal elections on a strictly non-partisan basis, 
with provisions under which no candidate can be elected by a 
plurality vote. It is interesting to note that although opposed by 
Mayor McCarthy and the group of politicians about him, these 
amendments correcting the weaknesses of the election laws, were 
adopted overwhelmingly. McCarthy's vote in 1911 was practically 
the same as the vote' by which he was elected in 1909. Had the 
election been held under the same conditions in 1911, as in 1909, 
McCarthy would almost to a certainty have been re-elected. 



The San Francisco Election of 1909 415 

for Republican nomination for Mayor, but Mr. Mauzy 451 
was defeated by William Crocker, who received the Re- 
publican nomination. The Democrats nominated Thomas 
B. W. Leland for the mayoralty office, while the Union 
Labor party named P. H. McCarthy. The mayoralty- 
district attorney tickets were, therefore: Republican, 
Crocker and Fickert ; Union Labor, McCarthy and Fick- 
ert; Democratic, Leland and Heney. But the issue be- 
fore San Francisco, continuance of the Graft Prosecu- 
tion, had no partisan significance at all. It was sup- 
ported and it was opposed by members of both parties. 
The whole fight was over the election of Heney. But 
never had candidate for office opposition which had more 
at stake. 452 

Men with apparently unlimited means at their dis- 
posal, realized that Heney's election would in all proba- 
bility mean for them a term in the State prison. They 
were fighting for their liberty. The commercial inter- 
ests were warned that, in the words of I. W. Hellman, 
Sr., the banker, the Graft Prosecution was hurting busi- 



451 Mr. Mauzy had the active opposition of the anti-prosecu- 
tion element, which proposed that old sores be forgotten, and the 
city be kept free of graft in the future. 

"If you think," said The Chronicle, on August 17, 1909, "San 
Francisco is suffering injury from the fruitless effort to obtain con- 
victions in cases in which evidence is lacking, vote the Byron 
Mauzy ticket. If you believe that the sane thing to do is to cease 
wasting money over the attempt to accomplish the impossible, 
vote for candidates who can be depended upon to give the city 
an administration from which graft will be eliminated in future." 

452 The platform expressions on the Graft Prosecution issue are 
interesting. The Republican platform made no reference to it at 
all. There was some talk of providing that "the District Attorney 
should do his duty," but not even this was provided. The Union 
Labor party plank on this question read as follows: 

"We believe in the principle of the equality of all men before 
the law; that every guilty person should be prosecuted with vigor, 
in accordance with the law of the land, and that the administra- 



41 6 The San Francisco Election of 1909 

ness. 453 The anti-Graft Prosecution press insisted day 
after day that bribery of public officials, while bad, is the 
most common of crimes and the most difficult to prove; 
that San Francisco had tried to convict, had failed and 
might as well give up. So-called "improvement clubs" 
went so far as to adopt resolutions not only protesting 
against further prosecution, but demanding that the Su- 
pervisors withdraw support given the District Attorney's 

tion of the law should be free from any and all suspicion of pri- 
vate control. We condemn favoritism or leniency in behalf of any 
offender before the law, or any compromise with criminals. We 
demand that anj' and all offenders be dealt with alike, and to such 
end we pledge our nominees." 

The Democratic plank alone pledged support to the Graft Prose- 
cution. It read: 

"We pledge the Democratic party absolutely and unequivocally 
to the support of the Graft Prosecution which for three years has 
valiantly battled for the principle of the equality of all men be- 
fore the law, which has secured convictions against disheartening 
odds and has paved the way for the clean administration of public 
affairs which we now enjoy. 

"The people must declare at this critical election for or against 
municipal corruption; for the enforcement of the law, or for its 
abandonment; for or against not only a greater but a better San 
Francisco. 

"Francis J. Heney, our candidate for District Attorney, em- 
bodies these issues, and we pledge him the vigorous and loyal 
support of the Democratic party." 

453 The "hurt business" argument was ably combated by busi- 
nessmen who were free of the graft mire. 

"From all the available information at hand," said Colonel 
Harris Weinstock, of the firm of Weinstock-Lubin & Co., in re- 
plying to this argument, "I find that on the whole the volume 
of business is greater in San Francisco than it ever was before. 
I am, therefore, unable to see how business has been hurt by the 
Graft Prosecution. 

"The burden of proof on this point properly rests with those 
making the charge. They should present facts and figures verifying 
their statement that business has been hurt by the graft prosecution 
before they can hope to have it accepted as fact. 

"So far as I have been able to find out, the Graft Prosecution 
has not hurt business, but even if it had seriously crippled busi- 
ness it would still be your duty and my duty and the duty of 
every lover and well-wisher of our free institutions to hold up 
the hands of those who are fighting your battle and my battle in 
an effort to bring public wrongdoers to justice, and thus prevent 
harm from coming to the republic. Let the work go on." 

The American National Bank of San Francisco, in a financial 
letter issued August 25, 1909, gave figures which disproved the Hell- 
man idea. 

"It is significant of San Francisco's credit standing in the 
world at large," the letter read, "that the bonds of this city com- 



The San Francisco Election of 1909 417 

office in its efforts to land bribe-givers behind the bars. 454 
And finally, the large business interests opposed to the 
prosecution, threw strength to McCarthy; not that they 
liked McCarthy — they united against him two years later 
— but because the election of McCarthy would go far 
toward the defeat of Heney. Members of the labor 
unions were, to a large extent, supporters of the prose- 
cution. Their votes had made Langdon's election sure 



mand prices that compare favorably with the issues of other large 
municipalities, as measured by the low interest return which in- 
vestors are willing to accept. To illustrate: For every $1,000 
put into municipal bonds at present figures, the purchaser would 
receive per annum: 

"From San Francisco bonds $39.00 

"From Philadelphia bonds 37.00 

"From Cincinnati bonds 37.50 

"From Cleveland bonds 37.50 

"From St. Louis bonds 38.80 

"From Pittsburg bonds 37.00 

"From Chicago bonds 38.50 

"From Minneapolis bonds 38.50 

"From Milwaukee bonds 39.00 

"From New York bonds 39.50 

"Considering these facts, and the readiness with which the San 
Francisco bonds are being taken, it does not appear that this city 
is suffering in reputation, as some people affect to believe, by 
reason of certain trials which have engaged the attention of the 
criminal courts for two years past." 

"I have no patience," said Heney, in discussing the Hellman 
argument, "with this talk that we hear from merchants and bank- 
ers that the Prosecution is hurting business. They heard the 
same talk in Boston when our Revolutionary sires threw tea over- 
board. It would hurt business, they said, to have a war with 
England. I can see the picture, when Thomas Jefferson was sign- 
ing the Declaration of Independence, of a large man, who looked 
like the cartoonist's representation of a corporation official, com- 
ing through the door behind him and shouting, 'Hold on, Tom, 
you'll hurt business.' And when Washington was spending that 
terrible winter with his army at Valley Forge, the same class 
of men who are now crying at us in San Francisco were shouting 
for the war to stop. 'Damn principle,' they were crying. 'It's 
hurting business. This war must stop.' " 

454 "It is," said the Chronicle, commenting upon the adoption 
of such resolutions, "a matter of common knowledge that there 
is a widespread feeling among those whose good citizenship cannot 
be disputed that the city, having done its best for three years, 
without success, to find legal proof which would connect officials 
of the corporations which profited by the corruption of the Schmitz 
administration with the crime of bribery, it is necessary to dis- 
continue the effort. Hitherto no one has been willing to formally 

14 



418 The San Francisco Election of 1909 

in 1907. During the 1909 campaign, and down to the 
very day of election, the sentiment among laboring men 
was to vote for McCarthy and Heney. But Heney's 
name did not appear on the Union Labor ticket. 

Labor's support of Heney was vigorously opposed. 
Appeal was made to workingmen to stay by their class; 
to vote for the labor candidates, McCarthy and Fickert. 
On the Monday night before the election, the writer, with 
Professor George H. Boke of the University of Cali- 
fornia Law School, joined a group of working men who 
were discussing the merits of the several candidates. 



approach the authorities in the matter lest he should appear to 
show sympathy with evildoers. The Richmond Club, however, 
has formally memorialized the Supervisors to withdraw further 
support by appropriations on the ground that it has become ap- 
parent that success is impossible, and that further effort would 
be not only a waste of money and energy but serve to keep be- 
fore the world the memory of a most disgraceful epoch in our 
history. 

"Bribery of public officials is the most dangerous of crimes. 
It undermines the very foundation of government by the people. 
And yet it has been in this and all other large American cities 
the most common of crimes. In the public mind, and in common 
speech, any person or firm which has habitually done business 
with our city government has been held to have on himself the 
burden of proof that he was innocent of bribery. And then came 
the riot of debauchery under the Schmitz administration, with 
corruption in all forms permeating every department of the city 
government. We have had nothing like that before, and yet 
until the election of the present Board of Supervisors this city 
has almost never had a Board on which some members were not 
believed to be corrupt and constantly on the watch for oppor- 
tunities to 'hold up' those seeking to do business with the city. 
It is not believed that any franchise now in existence has been 
obtained without bribery or operated without continuous bribery. 
It has been generally assumed that whoever undertook to do busi- 
ness with the city must buy his way in by some form of cor- 
ruption. 

"Bribery is a crime for which conviction is almost impossible. 
Occasionally proof can be got through a decoy, as in the case of 
the Schmitz Supervisors. What was exposed in that way, how- 
ever, was no legal proof against the higher officials of the bene- 
ficiary corporations. For that other proof must be had, and thus 
far, except in one case, no conviction has been had. And unless 
the courts reverse themselves that conviction will not stand. The 
question then arises as to the duty of the city. Shall we continue 
to expend energy in striving to accomplish what we all see to be 
impossible, or shall the city, having done its best, turn its energies 



The San Francisco Election of 1909 419 

Apparently all but one of them were for McCarthy and 
Heney. The exception was for Leland and Heney. He 
was defending- himself, when the writer joined the 
group, against the charge that in voting for Leland he 
was "voting outside his class." 

This Leland advocate was a most noticeable young 
man. He declared himself to be a member of the elec- 
tricians' union. Well under thirty, clear-eyed and force- 
ful, he was prepared to stand his ground. When his 
immediate opponent became personal, the electrical 
worker, without raising his voice, without excitement, or 
boast, or display, remarked quietly: "Do not resort to 



into more hopeful channels? As to that there will be differences of 
opinion, nor is it possible for anyone to know to what extent those 
differences are founded in reason, and how much on personal 
hatreds and a desire for notoriety. 

"There is doubtless a feeling - that the continuance of these 
prosecutions is now doing - great harm, which could only be 
counterbalanced by conviction based on clear legal proof, for which 
it is impossible to hope. In the first place, it is enormously 
costly and has introduced a universal system of spying which is 
exciting animosity against both sides of these cases. Decent citi- 
zens are coming to resent secret efforts to induce them to com- 
promise themselves on the one side or the other. Secondly, the 
awful exhibitions of perjury in order to escape jury duty are 
shocking the moral sense of the community as severely as it was 
shocked by the exposure of the bribery. And the examination of 
the jurors are resulting in expressions of opinion by prospective 
jurors which do not do the city any good. Finally, the conduct 
of these trials is turning into a farce processes which should be 
the most solemn exhibitions of the authority of the law. We must 
all recognize that it is common talk that society ought not to 
seek to imprison one possible criminal at the cost of the impris- 
onment for months at a time of innocent citizens dragged from 
their homes and compelled to listen to the interminable quarrels 
of counsel over matters having no legitimate bearing on the case 
and injected solely for the purpose of confusing jurymen. Every- 
body sees that it will be impossible in the case now on trial to 
get a jury fit to be intrusted with the fate of a dog. Every in- 
telligent citizen has been 'disqualified' by reading the testimony 
before the Grand Jury. 

"It is a most difficult situation. No reputable citizen is will- 
ing to seem to impede the course of justice. But, now that an 
organized body has formally raised before the Supervisors a 
question which has long been a daily subject of discussion when- 
ever two men have met, it will be necessary to frankly face the 
situation and decide where duty lies." 



420 The San Francisco Election of 1909 

personalities, for if it comes to personalities, what chance 
have you against me?" 

There were no more personalities. 

Incidentally his argument was fast bringing out the 
fact that every worker in the crowd was going to vote 
for Heney. The effect of it was important. Suddenly 
from somewhere there appeared a new man to do his 
part in molding public opinion. 

The new-comer went through that crowd with the 
assurance of a practiced football player through an ag- 
gregation of amateurs. In less than five minutes he had 
addressed every man of the group. But he had none of 
the marks of a worker, and nobody thought to ask for 
his "card." His was the pasty face and the pudgy neck 
and the soft, unclean hand of the cadet. His argument 
was curious and even ridiculous, but it was most effect- 
ive. It at least scattered the crowd. 

"Of course Calhoun is a grafter," he said in effect. 
"They are all grafters. Spreckels is a grafter. Of 
course, Fickert is Calhoun's man, just as Heney is 
Spreckels's man. They are all out for graft. But if we 
are to have grafting, let's keep the graft in our own 
class. Why should you vote to let Spreckels's men do 
the grafting? You have a candidate of your own. Vote 
for him. It is only a fight between millionaires any- 
how, and a toss-up which is right. Let us vote for the 
man of our class." 

The effect of this running fire of words was imme- 
diate. The electrician lost the attention of his associates. 
The discussion came to an end with murmurs of ap- 
proval of the newcomer's position. That he should have 



The San Francisco Election of 1909 421 

changed a vote with such argument seems incredible. 
But that he had created a doubt in the minds of those 
workingmen was apparent to all who saw. He left them 
well prepared for the anti-prosecution workers who 
would meet them at the polls the next morning. 

But the laboring element was not the only "class" 
forced into opposition to Heney. At the exclusive clubs, 
fashionable hotels, social functions, support of Heney 
was denounced as treason to the exclusive, fashionable, 
social class. It was quite amusing to hear first genera- 
tion descendants of honest steerage immigrants decrying 
the prosecution of rich men trapped in bribe-giving on 
the theory that to do otherwise "would be treason to 
our class." 

Thus, Mr. Heney was called upon to meet the "class" 
opposition of the laborer and the magnate. On the 
other hand, the unafraid, intelligent people of San Fran- 
cisco, who recognized no "class" issue, rallied to Heney's 
support. But they were without the concerted plan of 
action which the other side had perfected. The San 
Francisco press, with the exception of The Bulletin and 
Daily News, gave Heney no editorial support, but the 
country press, which had no circulation in San Fran- 
cisco, earnestly urged his election. 435 



455 The following from the Fresno Republican is very good ex- 
ample of this excellent but unavailing newspaper support: 

"Good people of San Francisco, give heed and ta,ke notice, the 
way it looks in the clearer perspective of an outside view. 

"Francis J. Heney is a candidate for District Attorney, and he 
is the issue. It is stop the Graft Prosecutions, or go on with them. 
Your votes will determine it. 

"You are 'tired of the Graft Prosecutions.' How long did it 
take you to get tired of the graft? Can 3 T ou not be patient as 
long with militant honesty as you were with sneaking crime? 

"You may stop these Prosecutions, if you so vote. But re- 
member the whole civilized world is looking on, and will judge 



422 The San Francisco Election of 1909 

Good citizens throughout the country wrote urging 
Heney 's election. "To rout the forces of the prosecu- 
tion at this juncture in San Francisco," wrote Rabbi 
Stephen S. Wise of New York, "is to hoist the red flag 
of anarchy, to proclaim that law and order are not al- 
ways enforceable, or that such enforcement is not always 
profitable." 

But Rabbi Wise was in New York. His influence 
did not, unfortunately, extend, in any important degree, 
to San Francisco. 

On the day of election, the writer visited many vot- 
ing places in the districts in which the labor vote was 

you by that vote. It is the good name of San Francisco that you 
are voting- up or down. 

"Banker Hellman says not. He has been to New Tork and he 
says 'New York' wants the Prosecutions stopped, and 'New York' 
will not lend any more money until they are stopped. 

"What is Banker Hellman's 'New York?' It is certain banks 
and certain syndicates in New York. And it is the San Francisco 
officials of precisely these syndicates that you are now prosecu- 
ting. Of course, Patrick Calhoun, of New York, wants the prose- 
cution of Patrick Calhoun of San Francisco stopped. It is Banker 
Hellman's privilege to have a mere pendulum which swings from 
his San Francisco office to his New York office and thinks it is in 
New York. But it is not incumbent on you to share that mental 
deficiency. If Banker Hellman should announce in New York 
that he was going to discuss the San Francisco situation, his audi- 
ence would consist of the New York partners of the San Francisco 
grafters. He thinks that is 'New York.' The real New York 
would neither know nor care. It never heard of Banker Hellman. 
But if Francis J. Heney should be announced to discuss the San 
Francisco situation in New York, there is not a place of assem- 
blage in the city big enough to hold the people who would want to 
hear and see him. The whole nation knows Heney and it has 
made up its mind about him. It is waiting to see what you do, 
before it makes up its mind about you, too. 

" 'The prosecutions must stop, some time,' to be sure. But 
who has earned from San Francisco the right to say when? When 
Francis J. Heney says it is time to quit, then it is time; not be- 
fore. He has given his time, his strength, and almost his life for 
you. He has purified your politics and regulated your government. 
He has redeemed your city's name in the esteem of the world. 
He is making for you a fight which no one ever had the courage, 
the persistence or the ability to make before. He is not tired yet 
and he has not surrendered yet. Suppose you leave it to him, 
when it is time to quit. 

"People of San Francisco, the world is looking on. It cannot 
determine your decision. Neither can you determine what it will 
think of that decision, when it is made." 



The San Francisco Election of 1909 423 

strong. Working men by the scores were taking less 
than a minute to mark their ballots. It was evident that 
they were voting by means of the party circle. Every 
Labor Union party vote of this kind was a vote against 
Heney. The last hope that Heney would get this sup- 
port was gone. One did not need wait for the counting 
of the ballots. It was plain that Heney was defeated. 

The election returns spoke eloquently of the means 
that had been employed to defeat Heney. For the pri- 
mary election 47,945 had registered as Republicans, but 
Crocker, the Republican candidate for Mayor, received 
only 13,766 votes at the final election. Although but 
10,546 had registered for the primaries as members of 
the Union Labor party, P. H. McCarthy received 29,455 
votes, which, wherever voting was done by means of 
the party circle, carried a vote for Fickert. 

Fickert, with the two nominations, received 36,192. 
Heney, running on the Democratic ticket, received 26,075 
votes, 6481 more than Leland, the candidate for Mayor. 
But the combination against Heney was too great for 
him or any man to overcome. Fickert was elected. 456 

The Graft Prosecution had been defeated at the polls. 



456 Heney on the day after the election issued the following 
statement: 

"The first battle for equality before the law has been fought 
and lost, but the war against graft will continue to be waged by 
all true soldiers who have been fighting with me in the great 
cause of common honesty, common decency, and civic righteous- 
ness. 

"The fight between the forces of evil and the forces of good is 
and must be a perpetual one. The first battle of Bull Run cast 
gloom over the entire earth, but that disaster only inspired the 
immortal Lincoln and his followers with stern resolution and fresh 
courage. 

"San Francisco has received a sad blow and the cause of equal- 
ity before the law a great setback, but be of good cheer and take 
fresh courage, you many thousands of good men and women who 
have joined in this fight for the maintenance of the purity and 



424 The San Francisco Election of 1909 

protection of our homes and the uplifting of the moral standards 
of our city! 

"We have been defeated in this election, but the sober moral 
sense of the community will again reassert itself and San Fran- 
cisco will vindicate herself before the world. 

"I retract nothing that I have said during the recent campaign. 
On the contrary, I reassert the truth of all that I have stated from 
the public platforms. I have no regrets except that for poor San 
Francisco and the many thousands of people who fought shoulder 
to shoulder with me in the good fight. 

"Let us all to-night firmly resolve that we will continue the 
battle for equality before the law with unabated vigor until suc- 
cess has crowned our efforts." 



The following statement was issued by Rudolph Spreckels: 

"While the defeat at yesterday's election of the principles for 
which I have fought is regretted by me, it will speedily bring 
about a truer estimate of my real motives. 

"One of the compensations of this defeat is that I have so 
quickly been given an opportunity to disprove the charges so fre- 
quently made that I have been actuated by sordid or vindictive 
motives. The individuals against whom it is alleged that I have 
entertained malicious and selfish designs are entirely removed 
from the possibility of harm at the hands of the so-called Prose- 
cution. 

"Attempting to punish was an unpleasant and incidental por- 
tion of the public work which I set out to do. I am glad that the 
people have taken that task off my hands and left me free to do 
the more important part of my undertaking. 

"Feeling that the people will fully realize this, I desire to say 
that I shall continue the work of civic regeneration with undi- 
minished hope and earnestness." 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 
Dismissal of the Graft Cases. 

At the time of Mr. Fickert's election to the District 
Attorney's office, the second trial of Patrick Calhoun 
for offering a bribe was well under way. As at the 
other graft trials, there had been delays 457 so that after 
five months the jury was only half complete. That the 
trial could not be finished before Mr. Fickert assumed 
the duties of his office became evi.dent. The case was, 
for that reason, on December 9, continued until January 
10, in order that Mr. Fickert might participate in the 
selection of the trial jurors. But on that date, Mr. 
Fickert, who had been in office only two days, very 
frankly admitted himself to be unfamiliar with the facts, 
and not prepared to go to trial. Further continuance 
was accordingly granted until January 31, and then until 
February 7. 

In the meantime former Supervisor James L. Gal- 
lagher, the pivotal witness in the case, had disappeared. 
Gallagher was known to have been in San Francisco for 
some three weeks after Fickert's election. About De- 



457 The second trial of Patrick Calhoun (No. 1437) was begun 
July 19, 1909. Owing to the illness of one of Mr. Calhoun's coun- 
sel, the trial was suspended on August 16th, and resumed Septem- 
ber 30th. The following day the defendant secured further con- 
tinuance until November 15th, upon the ground of the pendency 
of a municipal political campaign. After the election the trial was 
resumed. On December 9th, it was, by agreement between the 
parties continued until January 10th, when the new District At- 
torney should be in office. 



426 



Dismissal of the Graft Cases 



cember 1 he dropped out of sight. He was supposed 
to have gone to Europe. 458 

On February 7, Mr. Fickert moved the dismissal of 
the case pending against Mr. Calhoun on the ground 
that there was not sufficient legal and competent evi- 
dence to warrant him submitting the case to a jury. 459 



458 The motives which prompted Gallagher to flee the city are 
among' the undetermined elements of the graft cases. Perhaps rec- 
ollection of his attempted assassination had something to do with 
it. It may be that the defense, which had done so many extra- 
ordinary things during the course of the graft trials, made it worth 
his while to go. Gallagher is known to have been plentifully sup- 
plied with money while he was away. An attempt was made to 
create the impression that agents of the Prosecution had been in- 
strumental in getting Gallagher out of the State. But the attempt, 
while it confused the situation somewhat, was not taken seriously. 
When in August, 1911, Judge Lawlor dismissed the indictments 
against the alleged bribe-givers in the trolley case, he took occa- 
sion to say: "I am more convinced now than I was when these 
same motions were urged more than a year ago, that James L. 
Gallagher is remaining out of this jurisdiction for a specific pur- 
pose. The future will make that point entirely clear. When his 
importance as a witness in any of these so-called graft cases has 
ceased there is no doubt that James L. Gallagher will be again 
in our midst. If I were able to lay the responsibility for that situ- 
ation upon any individual or set of individuals I repeat that ap- 
propriate proceedings would have been instituted to have the law 
redressed in that behalf." ' 

Judge Lawlor was right. After the dismissal of the graft cases 
Mr. Gallagher returned to San Francisco. 

To the intimation of District Attorney Fickert that Gallagher left 
the State to embarrass the District Attorney's administration, Judge 
Lawlor on one occasion said in an opinion: "That the former ad- 
ministration may have distrusted the official intentions of the Dis- 
trict Attorney toward these indictments might be assumed from 
all the surrounding circumstances. But it does not seem probable 
that the former administration would induce a material and indis- 
pensable witness to leave the State and thereby make it easy for 
the District Attorney to secure a result which otherwise might 
entail serious embarassment. So far as the showing is concerned 
there is no tangible proof tending to support the charge of the 
District Attorney, nor is there any proof which would justify such 
an inference." 

4 r >9 Fickert's motion had been prepared in advance and was read 
to the court. "Since the calling of this case on January 10th," he 
said, "I have made a thorough and careful examination of the evi- 
dence left in the District Attorney's office by my predecessor, Mr. 
Dangdon, and he informed me on my accession to the office, that he 
had delivered to me all the evidence of every kind and character 
in his possession or under his control in this case. I have also ex- 
amined the transcript of testimony given at the former trial of this 
defendant; besides this, I have made independent search for further 
evidence. These examinations convince me that there is not suf- 



Dismissal of the Graft Cases 427 

Judge Lawlor denied the motion. In denying it, 
Judge Lawlor stated that in the view of the court the 
action should be tried by a jury and a verdict should 
be rendered by a jury, if that were possible, in the full 
operation of the law. 

Fickert stated in the discussion which followed that 
he wanted his motion to apply to all the other graft 
cases of the same class as Calhoun's, with the exception 
of the defendants Ruef and Schmitz. But here again 
did the Judge deny the District Attorney's request. 

After Judge Lawlor's ruling, Calhoun's attorneys 
announced themselves ready to proceed with the trial 
of the case. Fickert stated that he would be ready in 
a week. Judge Lawlor thereupon questioned Fickert 
very closely about the absent witness, Gallagher. Fick- 
ert gave assurance that diligent hunt was being made 
for the witness. 

The questioning of the District Attorney was con- 
tinued ten days later when the case again came up. 
Judge Lawlor asked Fickert to tell definitely whether 
he proposed to put the issue before a jury in the absence 
of his material witness. 

Fickert replied that Gallagher's absence greatly weak- 
ened the State's case, and that in his belief certain facts 
could not be proved without Gallagher being present. 
But as for that, Fickert insisted that even with Gal- 
lagher present he did not believe that the State could 

ficient legal and competent evidence to justify me, as a sworn officer 
of the law, to present this case to a jury. 

"My opinion is confirmed by the fact that 42 out of 48 jurors 
sworn to try this defendant and the defendant, Tirey L. Ford, upon 
the same state of facts, voted 'Not Guilty.' I, therefore, 'in fur- 
therance of justice,' move the dismissal of this indictment, on the 
grounds that the evidence is wholly insufficient to warrant an- 
other trial of this case." 



428 



Dismissal of the Graft Cases 



make out a case. 460 Nevertheless, he continued to insist 
that he was ready to proceed to try the action even in 
the absence of the witness Gallagher. 

But Judge Lawlor announced that he did not pro- 
pose to proceed with the trial of the action: 

(1) If a material witness were without the jurisdic- 
tion of the court. 

(2) If the court did not believe that the cause were 
to be prosecuted with the vigor and fidelity that the law 
contemplates. 461 

460 Judge Lawlor was also careful to make clear that if the 
court proceeded with the formation of a jury, jeopardy would at- 
tach to the case. He also pointed out that the statute of limita- 
tions had run against the alleged crimes. The following is from 
the transcript, the questions being directed to Mr. Fickert: 

"The Court: You are aware that if you proceed to form a jury 
to try this issue, and the witness does not appear, that jeopardy 
has nevertheless attached and that the defendant will be entitled 
to ask for his deliverance at the hands of that jury, whether that 
witness is produced or not. 

"Mr. Fickert: Yes, I am aware of that, if your Honor please. 

"The Court: And you are aware further that the alleged crim- 
inal act set up in the indictment is outlawed within the meaning 
of Section 800 of the Penal Code; that is to say, that more than 
three years have intervened since it is claimed that that act was 
committed. 

"Mr. Fickert: That is correct, if your Honor please. 

"The Court: The witness, James L. Gallagher, gave testimony 
in the trial of case 1436 against this defendant. You are aware 
that the testimony relating to an indictment cannot be read to a jury 
on a retrial of the action; in other words, that if James L. Gallagher 
does not appear in this trial his testimony cannot be presented to 
the jury." 

Fickert suggested that counsel might stipulate that the evidence 
be read. But counsel for Mr. Calhoun hastened to assure Mr. Fick- 
ert that counsel would stipulate to nothing of the kind. 

461 "At the present time," said Judge Lawlor in making this 
announcement, "it is the intention of the Court to deal with this 
matter, so far as the absence of that material witness is con- 
cerned, and to suspend judgment as to the ultimate attitude of the 
District Attorney in respect to this and other causes before the 
Court. I do not intend to sit here and preside over a trial if for 
any reason, whether it seems sufficient to the District Attorney 
or not, the Court reaches the conclusion that the case is not being 
prosecuted in good faith. The Court, in pointing out the duty of 
the District Attorney on February 7th, was not inviting a sugges- 
tion that we should proceed to trial without regard to the outcome 
of that trial or to its particular features or the manner in which it 
should he tried. The Court will try no case, it will not consume 
its own time, it will not consume the time of others, it will not 



Dismissal of the Graft Cases 429 

Fickert also stated his position. He insisted that he 
did not believe that any evidence had ever existed 
against the trolley-graft defendants Abbott and Mullally, 
and did not believe it to be his duty as District Attorney 
to prosecute men against whom there was no evidence. 
Fickert even attempted to commit judge Lawlor to this 
proposition, by stating that the Judge in chambers had 
confessed as much. This Judge Lawlor denied. Mr. 
Fickert's assistant, Mr. Berry, had been present during 
the discussion in chambers between Mr. Fickert and 



allow the expenditure of public money for the mere purpose of go- 
ing through the forms of a trial. The Court must feel in the end 
that the people are represented. Now, what its final view shall be 
as to the District Attorney will be announced when the Court deems 
that anouncement pertinent and proper. The Court has its own 
views as to what may be done within the exercise of its prerogative 
in the event that it does not feel that the people are represented, 
and will act upon its own judgment when that time arrives. At 
this time the witness being absent from the jurisdiction of the 
Court, the Court points out to the District Attorney his duty, under 
Section 1052 of the Penal Code, to move for a proper continuance 
of this action until the Court can be advised as to whether or not 
that witness can be produced." 

Later, when Fickert suggested that all criminal causes be trans- 
ferred to some other department where the judge might be of a 
different opinion, Judge Lawlor said: 

"I have had no occasion to find fault with your acts in respect 
to any other causes that have been brought before this Court. I 
am endeavoring to have your mind concentrated upon one thing, 
and that is the matters which are before this Court, and for the 
prosecution of which you, under your sworn oath of office are re- 
quired to give your full attention to. Tour own statement in sup- 
port of your motion to dismiss this case evinces in my judgment 
a disposition not to do your duty. However, I still say that this 
matter I bring to your attention, and ask you to give full reflection 
upon the matter. I have no desire in any manner to hamper you. 
The process of this Court is ■ at your disposal at all times, in all 
causes, and if any person or set of persons be found to be inter- 
fering with the due administration of Justice you will have a full 
hearing before this Court in order that you shall not be so ham- 
pered. Your statement concerning these cases is calculated not 
alone to affect the fortune of these undetermined cases, but it is 
well calculated to affect the disposition of the other causes and 
other charges wherein convictions were had against other persons 
growing out of this alleged transaction, and which cases are now 
on their way for a determination to the courts of appeal in this 
State." 



430 Dismissal of the Graft Cases 

Judge Lawlor, but Mr. Berry failed to sustain his chief's 
contention. 462 

"In these cases, the cases against Mr. Abbott and 
Mr. Mullally," said Fickert, "I shall never proceed in 
them because there is absolutely no evidence which at 
all gives even a suspicion." 

In respect to the other cases, Mr. Fickert announced 
that he intended to take the same course that he had 
in those under discussion, and stated that if the Judge 
so desired he would advise him before hand as to which 
of the cases he intended to make a motion for dismissal. 

"In view of the statement you made on February 
7," 463 replied Judge Lawlor, "the Court will not feel 
called upon to grant any application looking to a dis- 
missal of any of those cases. The Court will finally 
deal with them in the manner prescribed by the law. 
And if that situation is not reached so that the Court 
can proceed with the trial, the Court will be under the 

462 "I think your Honor well knows," Fickert had said, "that 
certain defendants in this particular class of cases, that there have 
not been produced here in Court, and I do not think ever ex- 
isted, any evidence against them. I allude to Mr. Abbott and Mr. 
Mullally. And I so informed you in your chambers, and you in 
words confessed that proposition." 

Judge Lawlor took this statement up. The following is from the 
transcript: 

"The Court: Now, before you pass to those other cases, in re- 
gard to these two cases do you make the statement that I made 
any statement to you, in the presence of Mr. Berry, that I said 
there was not sufficient evidence? 

"Mr. Fickert: I so informed you, and you, in effect, so stated. 

"The Court: Did you so understand it, Mr. Berry? 

"Mr. Fickert: That there was no evidence against those men? 

"Mr. Berry: I remember Mr. Fickert saying he did not consider 
there was any evidence against those men, but I do not remember 
the Court's reply: I do not remember that the Court did reply. 

"The Court: I did not. It is not the province of the Court to 
pass upon the facts in a criminal case. The facts are placed before 
a jury, and the jury pass on the facts. 

"Mr. Fickert: I am certainly not mistaken in that matter. 

"The Court: You are certainly mistaken in that matter; I was 
careful not to make any such statement." 

41;:; See footnote 459, page 426. 



Dismissal of the Graft Cases 431 

solemn obligation of setting down in its minutes the 
reason why a trial has not been had in any particular 
instance, and why cases are dismissed or disposed of 
without the trial of the general issue. The Court cannot 
escape its responsibilities. I have pointed out that under 
the law it is for the Court to say finally what shall 
become of cases that are not pressed to conclusion, and 
when the Court does that it must give its reasons — the 
law says so. In this State, since the formation of the 
government therein, the power has not for any consid- 
erable length of time lodged in the District Attorney to 
dispose of actions; that matter is confided to the Court. 
Counsel will be doing injustice to his own position if 
he assumes that the Court has any other attitude than 
to finally dispose of these matters according to the law 
without doing injustice to any person, either to the Dis- 
trict Attorney or any person who is unfortunate enough 
to be involved. But when the Court comes to write 
down its action it will be based upon what it believes to 
be the fact and upon nothing else." 

Fickert replied that he was ready to proceed with 
the matter. To this Judge Lawlor reiterated that the 
Court was not going to permit the District Attorney to 
proceed in the absence of a witness, who, according to 
the District Attorney's own statement, was material. 464 



464 "In dealing with the attitude of the District Attorney," said 
Judge Lawlor, "as is manifested by all that I have said upon that 
subject, I have endeavored to deal justly with him, to reach no con- 
clusion myself definitely as to the attitude of the District Attorney. 
I sincerely hope that in these cases, as in all cases that may come 
before the Court, the District Attorney will do his full duty. I de- 
sire it equally understood, however, that if the District Attorney 
in any case fails of his duty the Court is not going to be recreant 
and it is not going to sit here as a minister of justice and permit 
a travesty in any form, for any purpose, whatever the views of the 
District Attorney may be. Now, I have endeavored to make it 



432 Dismissal of the Graft Cases 

Nor did the earnest plea of attorneys for the defense 
for dismissal move Judge Lawlor. In the absence of 
the material witness, Gallagher, he continued the case, 
on the Court's own motion, until April 25. 465 

On that date, Calhoun's attorneys moved for dis- 
missal of all the indictments pending against their client 
upon the ground that his trial had been postponed and 
continued for more than sixty days without his consent 
and over his objection and exception. 

Fickert submitted the motion, fortifying it with a 
statement that he did not believe that the District Attor- 
ney's office would be justified in asking continuance until 
Gallagher's return. 

Judge Lawlor postponed determination of the motion 



clear that there are two considerations that will affect the Court 
in the final disposition of this business: First, that it will not pro- 
ceed with the trial of any action where material testimony is not 
forthcoming. That would be the disposition of the Court in any 
case, but it is especially its attitude in this case in view of the 
sweeping statement of the District Attorney made on February 7th 
that there is no sufficient evidence upon which to proceed to trial 
against any of these four defendants." 

465 The statement was made repeatedly that Gallagher was not 
under subpoena when he left the State. The statement was even 
contained in the opinion of the Appellate Court, granting the writ 
of mandate that preceded the dismissal of the graft cases. Judge 
Lawlor at the proceedings when the cases were finally dismissed, 
touched upon this feature as follows: 

"The Court: The statement has been made in the opinion that 
I am not able to account for its appearance in the showing. This 
statement was made that no service had been made upon James 
L. Gallagher or that he was not under the order of the Court. That 
is a proposition of fact which has never been resolved by this Court 
and I am unable to determine how it could be determined else- 
where, how it could be declared elsewhere, in the absence of such 
testimony as I might be able to give on the subject. I expressly 
refrained, on an occasion when I made an extended statement cov- 
ering these cases, from making any final word on that subject. I 
am not prepared now to say so, because I don't know. 

"Mr. Berry: I will state to the Court that I have made a very 
careful inquiry in the District Attorney's office, and of the records, 
and of the officials in that office in the previous administration, and 
I have been unable to secure or to get any definite information on 
that point." 



Dismissal of the Graft Cases 433 

until July 14. 466 His ruling was announced on Au- 
gust 3. 

Judge Lawlor went exhaustively into the situation 



466 Judge Lawlor, in announcing - this decision, said in part: "Sec- 
tion 13 of Article I of the Constitution provides in part: 'In crim- 
inal prosecutions in any court whatever the party accused shall 
have the right to a speedy and public trial. * * *.' Section 1382 
of the Penal Code declares in part: 'The court, unless good cause 
to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution to be dis- 
missed in the following cases: * * *. 2. If a defendant, whose 
trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought 
to trial within sixty days after the finding of the indictment, or 
filing of the information.' 

"This provision has repeatedly been declared to be a statutory 
expression with reference to the section of the constitution to which 
the Court has referred. It has been held to mark the period within 
which a party accused of crime is to be brought to trial, unless 
good cause to the contrary is shown. About the general proposition 
of law involved in the determination of the present motion there 
can be little ground for contention. The perplexity usually arises 
in the determination of what the reserve language of Subdivision 
2 of Section 1382 of the Penal Code may be included to cover. An 
application of this character must be determined according to the 
peculiar circumstances surrounding the application." * * * 

"The Court is of the view that so far as the determination of 
the motion itself is concerned the onus is on the People to show 
good cause, which would take the case out of the operation of the 
constitutional provision and the statute referred to. The Court, in 
that view of the matter, has addressed the District Attorney as to 
what his attitude is with respect to the motion, and the District 
Attorney has made it plain that it is not his intention to take any 
step toward meeting the application of the defendant to have the 
causes dismissed. In the view which the Court takes of the gen- 
eral attitude of the District Attorney toward the four defendants 
at bar, the Court feels it is a case where it must act, and to the 
extent that it may be needed, to protect the public interests. The 
Court has judicial knowledge of the history of the charges against 
these four defendants. It knows judicially that a material, and, it 
is claimed, an indispensable witness to the prosecution of these 
charges is without the jurisdiction of the State. It is not prepared, 
on any evidence before it, to charge the responsibility of the absence 
of that witness either to the former administration or to the pres- 
ent administration in the District Attorney's office. The fact, how- 
ever, that the witness is absent from the State and not within 
reach of the process of the Court, is a fact established before the 
Court at this time. 

"It is not the intention of the Court to disregard the rights of 
this or any other defendant, that may be urged before this Court, 
but, it is likewise the disposition of the Court, to see that the pub- 
lic interests are safeguarded, and that no arrangement between the 
defendants and the sworn officer of the law shall be suffered to 
direct and control the action of this Court. And in that view of 
the matter the Court has reached the conclusion that it is its duty 
to continue these causes further, in order to see whether or not 
the missing witness can be secured, and if he cannot be secured 
within such time as this Court may deem to be proper and which 
would take the case out of the exception contained in the provision 



434 Dismissal of the Graft Cases 

presented. 467 He pointed out that a material and in- 
dispensable witness was absent from the State; he 
stated that the Court was called upon to intervene "be- 
cause the District Attorney has at practically every turn 
followed the lead of these defendants" ; he held that 
through the influence of unusual agencies, so far as the 
graft cases were concerned, the law had broken down, 
and that the crimes charged are of the most serious 
nature, "because such criminal activity tends to sap the 
very foundations of government" ; he insisted that be- 
fore the indictments should be finally disposed of every 
reasonable effort should be made to get at the truth of 
the situation. 

"The disposition of grave charges other than on 
their merits," he concluded, "is not to be encouraged 
and should not be allowed, except in the face of a strict 
legal necessity." He continued the cases until Au- 
gust 29. 

Stanley Moore, one of Calhoun's attorneys, when 
Judge Lawlor had concluded, demanded that he be per- 
mitted to reply. This demand was refused. 

There followed one of the most extraordinary scenes 
ever recorded of a court of justice. The defendant's 
attorneys, the District Attorney, and even the prisoner 
at bar, openly and contemptuously defied the Judge on 
the bench. 

Stanley Moore charged him with "doing politics 

of the statute, and the constitutional provision, then to deal with 
this motion. 

"It is therefore ordered that the determination of the pending 
motion in the causes against the four defendants named be con- 
tinued for further hearing until 10 a. m., Thursday, July 14, 1910." 

407 Judge L.awlor's decision will be found in full in the Appendix, 
page i. 



Dismissal of the Graft Cases 435 

from the bench that you stultify in your occupancy." 
A. A. Moore, another of Calhoun's lawyers, accused 
him of being "a partisan, a bitter partisan, and doing 
dirty politics." 

"And," Stanley Moore hastened to add, "have been 
before these indictments were ever filed in this court, 
as the events of that midnight deal in which you par- 
ticipated on April 29 amply demonstrate." 468 

District Attorney Fickert, in the face of the Court's 
direction that he take his seat, denounced "the state- 
ments and aspersions you have tried to cast upon me" 
as "false in each and every particular." 

A third of Mr. Calhoun's attorneys added his de- 
nunciation. Mr. John Barrett decried the proceedings 
as "infamous." 

Judge Lawlor sentenced Calhoun's three attorneys 
to serve five days each in the county jail for contempt 
and ordered the Sheriff to take charge of them. 

But the extraordinary scene was not concluded. The 
prisoner at the bar had not yet been heard. Calhoun 
took the floor to tell the Judge on the bench that should 
the Judge send him (Calhoun) to jail for contempt "it 
will be heralded all over this country as an honor." 469 

468 See Chapter XV. 

469 Calhoun's denunciation of Judge Lawlor was as follows: 
"Mr. Calhoun: May it please your Honor: I have been educated, 

sir, to have respect for the courts. I have sat in your court under 
circumstances that would have tried the patience of any American. 
Throughout these trials I have sought, sir, to give you under most 
trying circumstances that respect to which your office entitles you. 
But, sir, I cannot sit quiet and listen to the vile insinuations which 
you yourself have stated there was no evidence before you to 
justify. There have been periods, sir, when the greatest honor 
that could come to a man was to go to jail; and as an American 
citizen I say to you that if you should send me for contempt it will 
be heralded all over this country as an honor. You have seen fit, 
sir, to send three of the most distinguished counsel of this State 



436 



Dismissal of the Graft Cases 



The Court attempted to interrupt the angry defendant. 
The interruption was ignored. The prisoner at the bar 
was exhibiting himself as more powerful in San Fran- 
cisco than the Judge on the bench. When he had said 
his say, he took his seat. 

The trolley-graft cases dragged along for more than 
a year after this astonishing scene in Judge Lawlor's 
courtroom. 470 The defendants applied to the Supreme 
Court in habeas corpus proceedings, but failed to secure 
interference. They then went to the State District Court 
of Appeal, where they secured a writ of mandate di- 
recting Judge Lawlor to dismiss the indictments in the 
cases of the trolley-graft defendants. 471 The District 
Attorney's office announced to Judge Lawlor that the 
District Attorney had no intention of prosecuting an 
appeal from the judgment and order of the District 
Court. 



to jail. Why? Because they have sought to express in terms of 
respect, and yet in terms of strength, their protest against in- 
justice 

"The Court: Mr. Calhoun 

"Mr. Calhoun: There is a time — pardon me, your Honor — when 
every man has a right to be heard 

"The Court: Mr. Calhoun 

"Mr. Calhoun: Now, before I take my seat, I desire further to 
say this, that any insinuation that implies either that I was a party 
to any obstruction of justice, or that I was a party to the absence 
of this witness, or that I have sought to control the District At- 
torney's office of this city is untrue. There is no evidence before 
this Court. You yourself know it." 

470 Judge Dawlor's term of office expired in January, 1913. At 
the 1912 November elections he was a candidate for re-election. The 
force of the influence of the graft defense was thrown against him. 
Nevertheless, he was re-elected to serve as Superior Judge of the 
City and County of San Francisco until January, 1919. In November, 
1914, however, he was elected to the Supreme Bench of the State, 
his term of office beginning in January, 1915, and ending in January, 
1927. 

47i Of the three Appellate Judges who granted this writ, one 
of them, Kerrigan, was prominent in the flash-light picture taken 
at Santa Cruz during the 1906 State Convention, in which Ruef 
occupied the center position of honor. See Chapter IV. 



Dismissal of the Graft Cases 437 

Judge Lawlor thereupon dismissed the cases as di- 
rected. He also included the cases against Frank G. 
Drum, Eugene de Sabla and John Martin, which were 
governed by much the same considerations as the trolley 
cases. Four years and a half had passed since the 
indictments had been brought. Little by little, the in- 
fluence of those of the community who were for law 
and order and impartial law enforcement had been 
sapped and broken down. The prosecution had been 
worn out; the community had been worn out. The de- 
fense had shown greater staying qualities than either 
peace officers or community. It had been pretty thor- 
oughly demonstrated that convictions could not be had. 472 

The dismissal of the trolley-graft and gas-graft cases 
was the final breaking down of San Francisco's efforts 
to have the cases tried upon their merits. To be sure, 
the indictments against the telephone-graft defendants 
and the prizefight-graft defendants, and against Schmitz 
and Ruef still stood. Glass, a telephone-graft defend- 
ant, had been convicted, but the Supreme Court had 
reversed the decision on technicalities. 473 The absent 

472 Assistant District Attorney Berry on the occasion of the dis- 
missal of the indictments said on this point: "If the men who are 
involved in this transaction have transgressed the laws they are 
sowing the wind possibly which may reap the whirlwind by break- 
ing down the institutions of the land. I regret exceedingly, if 
these men are guilty of the offense with which they have stood 
charged here, that they cannot be convicted. I assure the Court 
and I state here that it would be my purpose to follow these cases, 
if these defendants are guilty and the evidence were had, to the 
uttermost in order to bring about the ends of justice. It is no 
doubt in the minds of the community that where men of promi- 
nence and where men of wealth are concerned, and are brought be- 
fore the bar of justice and justice is not had, that those who are 
less fortunate in influence and means are thereby made to feel and 
believe that this is not a government for those who stand before 
the law equal with those who stand with the tremendous power 
of influence behind them." 

473 The seven Justices of the Supreme Court took no less than 
four views of the points raised in the Glass case. The majority 



438 



Dismiss-al of the Graft Cases 



witness, Gallagher, was not a material witness in the 
Glass case. But when along in August, 1912, a year 
after the dismissal of the gas and trolley-graft cases, 
Glass's case was called, it was found that important wit- 
nesses had disappeared. The incident was taken by the 
papers, not as a reflection upon the community, but as 
a joke on Judge Lawlor. 474 The Glass cases were finally 
dismissed. 

Former Mayor Schmitz in February, 1912, was 
brought to trial. Ruef was brought over from San 

opinion was written by Justice Henshaw, and concurred in by Jus- 
tices Melvin and Lorigan. Chief Justice Beatty concurred in the 
judgment, but not in all the particulars of the opinion. In' signing 
the decision, the Chief Justice adds: "I concur in the judgment 
of reversal and in most particulars in the opinion of Justice Hen- 
shaw. I shall, if other pressing duties permit, present my views 
in a separate opinion." (See 112 Pacific Reporter, page 297.) The 
dissenting opinion was written by Justice Shaw and concurred in 
by Justice Angellotti. A third opinion was written by Justice Sloss. 
Justice Sloss, after defending the single point in the majority 
opinion in which he concurs, concludes: "On each of the other 
points discussed in the opinion of Justice Henshaw, I agree with 
the dissenting members of the court (Shaw and Angellotti) that 
no prejudicial error was committed." 

The fourth opinion, which the Chief Justice intimated he might 
file, was not filed. 

.474 The following from the San Francisco Call of August 2, 1912, 
indicates the completeness of the triumph of the defense campaign: 

"Mrs. Theodore Halsey, wife of Theodore V. Halsey, appeared 
before Superior Judge Lawlor yesterday morning on a bench war- 
rant in the case of Louis Glass, indicted for bribery in the tele- 
phone cases growing out of the so-called Graft Prosecution. She 
was in court to explain the absence of her husband from the State, 
whose appearance is wanted if Lawlor orders Glass to trial. 

"Attorney Bert Schlesinger appeared with Mrs. Halsey, explain- 
ing the bench warrant was void inasmuch as Mrs. Halsey was not 
a fugitive. He said he did not wish to impede the trial in any way 
and would allow her to answer any questions propounded by the 
Court. 

"Lawlor asked Mrs. Halsey, through her attorney, where her 
husband was. Mrs. Halsey was not compelled to take the stand. 
She said Halsey left San Francisco six weeks ago because of ill 
health, going to Nevada, and that she has not heard from him in a 
week. 

"Assistant District Attorney Berry said a motion was before 
the Court to dismiss the indictments pending against Glass and he 
wished to know the Court's intention. Lawlor said he believed 
Halsey and Emil J. Zimmer, who is said to be in Europe, were 
competent witnesses against Glass, and it was his duty to try 
Glass again. He said the result of the former Glass trials showed 



Dismissal of the Graft Cases 439 

Quentin prison to testify against him. But Ruef re- 
fused to testify unless the Ruef indictments were dis- 
missed. This, Judge Dunne, 475 before whom many Ruef 
indictments were pending, refused to do. Ruef did not 
testify. Schmitz was acquitted. The other indictments 
against Schmitz were eventually dismissed. 

The same course followed in the cases of the other 
graft defendants. The graft defense had beaten San 
Francisco; its record of shameful success was complete. 



Halsey had knowledge of the source of the bribe money and who 
paid it to the Supervisors. 

"Lawlor continued the cases of Glass until August 12th, to learn 
from the District Attorney if the Prosecution has exhausted all its 
resources in the matter. 

"Schlesinger and Mrs. Halsey were about to leave the courtroom 
when Lawlor said, 'I trust, Mr. Schlesinger, you will inform the 
Court of the whereabouts of Mr. Halsey, if you learn in the mean- 
time.' 

" 'I will assist the Court in any way possible,' replied Schles- 
inger. 'But I regard all these Graft Prosecutions as corpses and the 
mourners have long since ceased to mourn.' 

"The Judge said nothing in the record showed such a condition. 
Detective Sergeant Prool took the stand and said he had learned 
nothing more of the whereabouts of either Halsey or Zimmer." 

475 Judge Dunne, until the last, stood as staunchly for effective 
prosecution of the graft cases as had Judge Lawlor. 



CHAPTER XXIX. 
Ruef's Last Refuge Fails. 

That a jury of twelve men had found Ruef guilty of 
bribe-giving did not mean necessarily that the broken 
boss would be confined at San Quentin, the prison to 
which he had been sentenced to serve his fourteen-year 
term. Indeed, the probabilities were very much against 
his suffering any such indignity. Ruef had, at the test, 
continued "true to his class" ; he had not assisted the 
State in bringing the bribe-givers to account. Men, 
powerful in financial, social and political circles were 
unquestionably under the greatest obligation to him. 
He had not "gone back on his class." His "class" owed 
it to him to save him from stripes, as Ruef by his 
course had beyond question saved many of his "class" 
from stripes. 

Having been convicted by a jury, the first move was 
for Ruef to appeal to the trial judge for a new trial. 
This appeal was denied him. Ruef then appealed from 
the judgment of the trial court to the District Court 
of Appeal. The three justices of the District Court of 
Appeal found nothing in Ruef's contention to warrant 
the granting of a new trial. 476 Thus four judges found 
that Ruef's trial had been fair, even technically fair. 
But Ruef's possibilities were not exhausted. 

The Supreme Court could, if four of the seven 

476 See Cal. App. Rpts., vol. 14, page 576. 



Ruef's Last Refuge Fails 441 

members were so inclined, grant him a rehearing, and 
to the Supreme Court Ruef applied. 

The California State Constitution provides that 
"the Supreme Court shall have power to order any 
cause pending . . . before a district court of ap- 
peal to be heard and determined by the Supreme Court. 
The order last mentioned may be made before judg- 
ment has been pronounced by a district court of ap- 
peal, or within thirty days after such judgment shall 
have become final therein." 

The District Court of Appeal found against Ruef 
on November 23, 1910; this action became final thirty 
days later, or on December 23, 1910. The Supreme 
Court had thirty days after December 23, that is to 
say, until January 22, 1911, to grant Ruef a rehearing, 
if a majority of the seven Supreme Justices so decided. 
If the Supreme Court failed to act before the close of 
January 22, Ruef, unless pardoned or parolled, would 
have to go to State prison. 

Ruef, on December 31, 1910, petitioned the Su- 
preme Court for a rehearing. On January 23, an- 
nouncement was made that the Supreme Court, by a 
four to three decision, had decided to grant Ruef's 
petition. The decision was received with protest from 
one end of the State to the other. 478 The Legislature 

478 Said the Sacramento Bee in an editorial article discussing 
this order, the day after it was made public, January 24, 1911: 

"It cannot be denied that this order, by a bare majority of the 
Supreme Court and — with the single exception of the Chief Justice, 
by the three of its members least esteemed and respected by the 
public — has excited disgust and exasperation throughout California. 
There is a strong popular feeling and belief that the Supreme Court 
should not thus have interposed to save from punishment the most 
notorious scoundrel and corruptionist in California, a man known 
to everybody as having enriched himself by systematic grafting 
and by the bribery of public servants in the interests of corpora- 



442 Ruef's Last Refuge Fails 

was in session at the time. Senator George W. Cart- 
wright of Fresno introduced a resolution * 79 requesting 
the Assembly — where impeachment proceedings must 
originate — to take such steps as might be deemed 
necessary for investigation of the Supreme Court's con- 
duct. 

And finally there came the rumor — at first not gen- 
erally believed, but later confirmed by the Supreme 
Justices themselves — that one of the Justices at least 
had signed the order granting Ruef his rehearing be- 
fore the Attorney-General had filed his brief in answer 
to Ruef's petition. The Justice who had thus acted 

tions, a man with many indictments resting against him, but con- 
victed only on one. 

"What adds to this general disgust and indignation over the 
Supreme Court's order is apprehension that the rehearing before 
that tribunal may result in the grant of a new trial for Ruef, a 
reversal which in all probability would be equivalent to a final 
discharge. Such changes have taken place in San Francisco in the 
last two years, especially in the office of the District Attorney, that 
a new trial would have small chance of ending in conviction. 

"No reasons are given by the Supreme Court for its order for a 
rehearing, but presumably they are of a purely technical sort, for 
the fact of Ruef's guilt was abundantly proved on the trial." 

479 The Cartwright resolution was in full as follows: 

"Whereas, The Supreme Court of this State on or about the 
23rd of January, 1911, rendered a decision in the case of the Peo- 
ple of the State of California vs. Abraham Ruef, in which the de- 
fendant is granted a rehearing; and 

"Whereas, Various newspapers have published criticisms con- 
demning said decision, and intimating that the Justices participa- 
ting therein were controlled by corrupt and unworthy motives; and 

"Whereas, The integrity of our courts has been frequently as- 
sailed by public speakers and by many of our citizens, all of which 
tends to destroy the confidence of The People in the purity and 
integrity of our courts of justice; be it 

"Resolved, by the Senate, That the Assembly be requested to 
appoint a committee of the Assembly, such committee to be au- 
thorized, empowered and instructed to investigate the whole sub- 
ject matter and particularly to investigate said decision, the 
grounds upon which the decision is based and the conduct of the 
Justices of the Supreme Court in relation to said decision, and that 
the committee report to the Assembly the results of such investi- 
gation, with such recommendations as to the committee may seem 
meet and proper in the premises; be it further 

"Resolved, That said committee shall have power to summon 
witnesses, and to send for persons and papers and to issue sub- 
poenaes and compel attendance of witnesses when necessary." 



Ruef's Last Refuge Fails 443 

was Justice Henshaw, the same Supreme Court Justice 
who occupied prominent position in the picture of the 
banquet scene at the 1906 Santa Cruz convention, in 
which Ruef appears in the central position of honor. 480 

The facts later brought out involved the following 
dates : 

December 31, 1910 — Ruef's petition for rehearing was 
filed in Supreme Court. 

January 10 — W. H. Metson was granted permis- 
sion to file a brief in the case as Amicus Curiae. 

January 10 — Justice Henshaw signed the order grant- 
ing Ruef a rehearing. 

January 11 — Justice Henshaw left the State and 
was absent until after the order granting Ruef a re- 
hearing had been filed. 

January 12 — Metson filed his brief as Amicus 
Curiae. 

January 12 — The Attorney-General filed his reply 
to Ruef's petition for a rehearing. 

January 19 — Justice Melvin signed the order grant- 
ing Ruef's petition. 

January 20 — Attorney-General filed reply to Met- 
son's brief. 

January 21 — Chief Justice Beatty, and Justices Shaw, 
Angellotti, Lorigan and Sloss met in the chambers of 
the Chief Justice for consultation regarding Ruef's 
petition. Justice Lorigan signed the order granting 
the petition. Justices Shaw, Angellotti and Sloss de- 
clined to concur in such order, and Chief Justice 

480 See Chapter IV. 



444 Ruef's Last Refuge Fails 

Beatty reserved his decision in the matter until Janu- 
ary 22, 1911. 

January 22, 1911 — (Sunday, the last day on which 
the order could be signed) Chief Justice Beatty signed 
the order, his being the fourth name on the document, 
four signatures being necessary to make it effective. 

January 23 — A typewritten copy of the order was 
filed with the Clerk of the Court, the original being- 
retained in the office of the secretaries to the Justices. 

Up to this time, eleven judges had passed upon 
Ruef's case. Seven of them — one Superior Judge, three 
Judges of the District Court of Appeal and three 
Justices of the Supreme Court — had decided that Ruef 
had had a fair trial, that no technicality could be in- 
voked to save him. Four of the eleven judges, in 
a way which, to the lay mind at least, was some- 
what irregular, had decided to grant a rehearing. The 
public was not at all backward in expressing the opinion 
that this would mean a new trial ; and that under con- 
ditions as they were at San Francisco, Ruef would not 
for a second time be convicted. 481 As is usual in such 
cases, the public was dissatisfied, suspicious, indignant, 
but without plan or remedy. Some demanded investiga- 

481 This view was entirely justified by the outcome in the Coffey 
case. Coffey was one of the boodle Supervisors who had at the 
test refused "to go back on his class." He was tried for bribe- 
taking and convicted. In the Court of Appeal practically the same 
points were raised in his favor as were raised in the Ruef case. 
The Appellate Court refused to interfere. The Supreme Court, by 
a three to four decision, granted Coffey a rehearing and later a 
new trial. The line-up of the eleven judges was the same in Cof- 
fey's case as in Ruef's — seven found Coffey had had a fair trial; 
four found that he had not. The four — under the rules of the 
legal game — were more potent than the seven. The jury verdict 
was nullified. The indictments against Coffey were finally dis- 
missed. Had the Supreme Court's order for a rehearing of the 
Ruef case stood, the outcome would have unquestionably been the 
same. 



Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 445 

tion at the hands of the Legislature; others wanted 
impeachment 482 proceedings instituted. Mr. William 
Denman, a leader of the California bar, urged before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Legislature 
owed it to the Supreme Court, as well as to itself and 
to the public, to make thorough investigation, and de- 
manded of the committee if the Legislature on proper 
showing would declare the office of a Supreme Justice 
vacant. 

Senator Shanahan, a member of the committee, was 
quick to reply that under such a showing the Legis- 
lature would certainly act. "But," added Shanahan — 
and here he touched the weak point of impeachment 
proceedings — "it would take months if not years. That 
is why impeachment proceedings will not be instituted. 
Impeachment proceedings from the trial of Warren 



482 Some of the ablest men in the State urged impeachment pro- 
ceedings. "If the charges," said United States Senator John D. 
Works in a letter to State Senator Hewitt, "made against Judge 
Henshaw by the Attorney-General of this State, under oath, are 
true, why is it the Legislature of this State before this has not com- 
menced impeachment proceedings against him? 

"The legislature has no right to shrink from this duty and re- 
sponsibility and relieve itself from taking such a step by relegating 
that duty and responsibility to The People of the State by the en- 
actment of recall legislation. If Judge Henshaw, or any other 
judge, has violated his duty to the State and betrayed his office 
as the charges made against him indicate, the duty of the legisla- 
ture is imperative, and that duty should be performed without 
hesitation and without delay." 

Justice Henshaw, in discussing Judge Works' letter, in an in- 
terview in the San Francisco Examiner, February 15, 1911, is 
quoted as saying: "All the charges made by Attorney General 
Webb in his affidavit attacking the Ruef rehearing order of Janu- 
ary 30th are true. The orders were signed in the manner stated 
and I told him so when he visited my office. There was nothing 
unusual about it. It was done in accordance with the usual prac- 
tice of this court. 

"We seldom meet in session to sign the orders. There may be 
twenty cases to be passed on in one week. Each Justice looks them 
over at his leisure and signs what orders he agrees to. 

"I was out of the State, as Mr. Webb says, and at the time that 
he says. I did not even imagine that there was a legal point in- 
volved. The practice never has been questioned before." 



446 Ruef's Last Refuge Fails 

Hastings to the present time have proved unsatisfac- 
tory." 

But, however individuals differed on the question of 
impeachment proceedings, the general attitude was that 
the Attorney-General should take steps, if such course 
were practical, to have the order granting Ruef a re- 
hearing set aside. This the Attorney-General did. 
He attacked the order before the tribunal which had 
made it, the highest tribunal in the State, the only 
one to which appeal could be made. 

And the Supreme Court set the order aside, de- 
claring it to be "ineffectual for any purpose and void." 

But the Supreme Court did not set the order aside 
because Justice Henshaw had signed the document be- 
fore the argument of the prosecution had been heard. 
The order was set aside on the ground that Henshaw, 
being absent from the State when the signature of 
the fourth Justice was attached thereto, was at the time, 
being absent from the State, unable to exercise any 
judicial function as a Justice of the Supreme Court. 
Without Henshaw's signature, the signatures of but 
three of the Supreme Justices appeared on the order. 
As the signatures of four of the Justices were re- 
quired to make the order effective the Court declared 
it to be worthless. 483 



483 The following is from the Supreme Court decision revoking 1 
the Ruef order for a rehearing (see California App. Reports, Vol. 14, 
page 576) : "The moment Justice Henshaw left the State, in view 
of the authorities already referred to, he became unable to exercise 
any judicial function as a Justice of the Supreme Court, in this 
State or out of it, and this disability continued during the whole 
period of his absence. During that time his situation was the same 
as if he had absolutely ceased to be a member of this court. It is 
true that there was a suspension, only, of his judicial power, instead 
of a final abrogation thereof, but the suspension, while it continued, 
was as absolute in its effect on his judicial power as would have 



Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 447 

Thirty days from the time the judgment of the 
District Court of Appeal became final having expired, 
the Supreme Court could not interfere further. Ruef 
had lost his last technical play on a technicality. He 
went to State prison. 

But Ruef did not go to State prison because a jury 
of twelve men had found him guilty of offering a bribe 
to a Supervisor; he did not go to State prison because 
seven out of eleven judges who passed upon the ques- 
tions involved had found that he had had a fair trial. 
Ruef went to State prison when he did because a mem- 
ber of the Supreme Court of California was absent 
from the State at a time inopportune for Ruef. 

Ordinarily, after his failure in the Supreme Court, 
Ruef would have had two more chances for escaping 
the full penalty of his bribe-giving, namely, parole at 
the hands of the State Board of Prison Directors, and 
pardon from the Governor. 

But again was Ruef unfortunate. Hiram W. John- 
son, as Governor of California, sat at Sacramento. 



been a complete vacancy in his office. Assent to or concurrence in a 
decision or order of the court being- the exercise of a purely ju- 
dicial function, his previous proposal to concur in a proposed order, 
one that had not yet been made and one that had not yet received 
the assent of other justices making - it an accomplished decision, 
temporarily ceased to be effectual for any purpose, and so con- 
tinued ineffectual for any purpose during the whole period of his 
absence. Such previously indicated willingness to concur could 
not accomplish that which the absent justice himself could not ac- 
complish. The time having expired before he returned it follows 
that he never concurred with even a single other justice in the 
purported order. (1) Admittedly this order, if it ever did become 
effectual, did not become so until January 22, 1911, when the fourth 
justice appended his name. At that time, however, Justice Hen- 
shaw could not effectually join therein, because of his absence from 
the State, and his previously indicated willingness to join therein 
could have no legal effect. The result is that only three justices of 
this court concurred in the purported order, and as such order 
could be made only by the concurrence of four justices, it was in- 
effectual for any purpose and void." 



448 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 

He had gone into office pledged "to kick the Southern 
Pacific machine out of the State government." He 
was keeping his pledge. There was no pressure which 
men of Mr. Ruef's "class" could bring upon Governor 
Johnson to move him to grant Ruef freedom. 

The possibility of parole was as remote, although 
the State Board of Prison Directors — who in Cali- 
fornia are appointed for ten-year terms — continued for 
a time under the old order. 

One of the five directors was Tirey L. Ford 484 of 
the United Railroads. Ruef went to prison convicted 
of a charge of bribing a Supervisor to vote to give 
the United Railroads its overhead trolley permit. The 
evidence indicated, if it did not show, and Mr. Ruef 
has since confessed, that this money came to him from 
General Ford. Ruef, because of the crime, found him- 
self confined in a prison of which General Ford was 



484 Ford's term as prison director expired January 12, 1914. 
He continued in office until his term had expired and his successor 
had been appointed. After Ruef had confessed that the trolley 
bribe money had come to him through Ford, the Sacramento Bee of 
August 30, 1912, after reciting the allegations of Ruef's confession, 
said: 

"There, in brief, is the tale which Abraham Ruef tells with 
much particularity. It is now in order for the Board of Prison 
Directors to ask the resignation of Prison Director Ford. 

"Undoubtedly, Governor Johnson would make a demand to that 
effect were he in the State. 

"Much sorrow, if not sympathy, has been felt for Tirey L. Ford 
all over California. The Bee has expressed some itself. The feel- 
ing has been that a man of naturally fine principles and honorable 
sentiments had been warped by his environments, and had done 
under instructions that at which his better nature rebelled. 

"It would be futile now to discuss what Tirey L. Ford should 
have done and should not have done; or to declare that no tempta- 
tion should have led him to perform any other than legal work for 
the United Railroads. 

"The Bee will say as little as it can say conscientiously under 
the circumstances. Human nature is human nature the world over. 
And The Bee men cannot forget the long, long years of intimate 
friendship with and faith in Tirey L. Ford. But every considera- 
tion of the eternal fitness of things demands that he should no 
longer remain a member of the State Board of Prison Directors." 



Ruef's Last Refuge Fails 449 

one of the five governors, with power of parole in his 
hands. But it developed that Governor Johnson had 
power to set aside such parole. So Ruef could expect 
little from even the Board of Prison Directors. 

Scarcely had Ruef been placed behind the bars, 
however, than a State-wide campaign was inaugurated 
to compel his pardon or parole. The public was treated 
daily by the newspapers with descriptions of the dis- 
comfitures 485 which Ruef was suffering. When he was 
found, for example, smuggling sweet chocolates into 
prison, and was punished for it, the Ruef-friendly press 
cried out at the cruelty and unreasonableness of such 
punishment. 486 

The suffering which his imprisonment has brought 

485 The following- is a fair sample of the articles descriptive of 
Ruef's suffering in prison, which have been inflicted upon the Cali- 
fornia public ever since Ruef donned stripes; it appeared in The 
San Francisco Bulletin of December 21, 1912: "Ruef is an epicure. 
As discordant sounds do violence to the feelings of a musician 
gifted with an exquisite ear, so coarse, badly cooked or tasteless 
food does violence to the epicure who is gifted with exquisite nerves 
for inhaling, tasting and appreciating delicate flavors. The gastric 
juices of the epicure cannot become freely active on mere hunger 
as with men not so endowed. Digestion with the epicure must 
wait upon the fine dictates of the palate; and a stomach so guarded 
cannot wantonly change to an extreme opposite without material 
suffering. To eat merely to be filled, to overeat, to eat hur- 
riedly, is for the epicure, as one epicure puts it, 'to commit moral 
sins.' Ruef since his imprisonment has been compelled to do all 
these things." 

486 To this complaint of cruelty to Ruef, The Fresno Republican 
made sharp answer: "A visitor," said The Republican, "smuggled 
articles to Ruef — nothing more dangerous than sweet chocolate and 
newspaper clippings, to be sure, but still a covert violation of a 
necessary rule — so Ruef is deprived of visitors and letters for two 
months, and the automatic application of a general rule postpones 
his application for parole for six months. Whereat there is wailing 
and woe, and the San Francisco Call says that Ruef's friends re- 
gard it as particularly unfortunate that he should be deprived of 
visitors just at the time when a movement for his parole is go- 
ing on. 

"To all: Let us be sympathetic. Only let us make it general. 
Ruef shall have his sweet chocolate. But all the other prisoners 
shall have it too. Ruef shall sneak things into prison, inside his 
blouse, by bribing the guards. But all the other prisoners shall 
have all the like privileges, though it is known that some of them 
would prefer dope, daggers and dynamite to sweet chocolate." 
15 



45° Ruef's Last Refuge Fails 

upon the members of his family is dwelt upon at length. 
Letters from them, pleading for assistance for their 
imprisoned relative have been received by many whose 
assistance it was thought might prove effective in se- 
curing his release. But when Ruef was brought back 
from San Quentin prison to San Francisco to testify 
at Schmitz's trial, the pathetic story was published 
broadcast that these letter-writing relatives had been 
kept in ignorance of his imprisonment, and thought 
him to be traveling in Europe. 487 

One of the most contemptible stories circulated to 
create public opinion for his release was that Ruef 
had been made scapegoat because of his religion. Ruef 
is a Jew, circulators of this story insisted that he is 
in prison because he is a Jew, while the gentile bribe- 
givers go free. 

As a matter of fact, the gentiles associated with 
Ruef have gone free because of Ruef's treachery to the 
graft prosecution, but this does not prevent the circula- 
tion of the story. 

A saner view, breathing of better citizenship, came 

487 Commenting- upon this the Sacramento Bee, in its issue of 
February 9, 1912, said: "In an effort to create sympathy for Abra- 
ham Ruef, a story was originated at San Francisco, and has found 
wide publicity as news, that the aged mother of the felon has been 
kept in ignorance of his imprisonment, and does not even know of 
his conviction for bribery. 

"Yet letters purporting to come from and to be signed by Ruef's 
mother, and pleading for his parole, have been received by The 
Bee and other newspapers for months past. Either these letters 
were forgeries and fabrications, or this tale of the mother's ignor- 
ance of Ruef's confinement is mere fiction. 

"In either case a contemptible trick has been played by some 
agency both active and unscrupulous in seeking to promote Ruef's 
release. After this the public and the newspapers may well be 
suspicious of sympathetic stories respecting Ruef and his confine- 
ment. If he Is personally responsible for the effort to exploit his 
mother in the manner here related, he is even a more despicable 
specimen of humanity than the known facts of his career would 
indicate." 



Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 451 

from Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the New York Free 
Synagogue. "Israel," said Rabbi Wise, "is not re- 
sponsible for Ruef's crimes any more than the Roman 
or Protestant Church is responsible for the crimes of 
its communicants. But we of the House of Israel in 
America would be in part answerable for Ruef's mis- 
deeds unless we made it clear, as we do, that Israel is 
unutterably pained by this blot upon its record of good 
citizenship in America." 

By far the most astonishing support of the move- 
ment to free Ruef came from the San Francisco Bul- 
letin and Fremont Older, its managing editor. Older 
was one of the strongest supporters of the graft prose- 
cution, as was the paper under his management. But 
once the graft prosecution was concluded, Older and 
the Bulletin became the most persistent of the sup- 
porters of the movement to secure Ruef his freedom. 488 

488 Older, in a letter to Dr. S. W. Hopkins, of Lodi, gives his 
reasons for working' for Ruef's release as follows: 

"San Francisco, September 25, 1911. Dr. S. W. Hopkins, Presi- 
dent Board of Health, Lodi, Cal. Dear Sir: If you read my article 
in the Survey, I think there is much in it that you did not under- 
stand. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I tried to. I wanted 
those who read the Surve}^ article to believe that I at least no 
longer think we are going to better the world by punishing men 
individually. I do not feel that it is good for people or for the edi- 
tor of the Pacific Christian to want vengeance administered to our 
brothers and sisters. I think vengeance, and by vengeance I mean 
punishment, makes us all worse rather than better. I have asked 
for mercy for Ruef because I felt that I, above all others, had done 
most to bring about his downfall. If you have followed the long 
fight the Bulletin has made during the past eight or nine years, you 
will recall that I was fighting Ruef long years before the city woke 
up. Tou will also recall that I attacked him bitterly with all the 
invectives that I could personally command, and all that I could 
hire. I cartooned him in stripes. I described him on his way to 
San Quentin; told how I thought he would act en route, and what 
his manner would be when the barber shaved his head, and how he 
would feel when locked up in a cell. I was vindictive, unscru- 
pulous, savage. I went to Washington and enlisted Heney in the 
fight. Burns came, and Spreckels joined in the chase. Then I pur- 
sued with the same relentless spirit in the wake of these men. 
At last, after eight years of a man-hunting and man-hating de- 
bauch, Ruef crossed over and became what I had wanted him to 



452 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 

Largely through Older's influence, men of prominence 
throughout the country — with apparently no very clear 
knowledge of the situation — have been induced to ex- 
press themselves as favorable to Ruefs release. 

In the publicity campaign for Ruefs release which 
gives no indication of abatement, Ruef, and those who 
seek his release, are praised in the most extravagant 
terms, while those who will not enroll themselves 
in his interests are as extravagantly condemned. 489 

be, what I had longed and dreamed that he might be — a convict, 
stripped of his citizenship, stripped of everything society values 
except the remnant of an ill-gotten fortune. It was then I said to 
myself: 'I have got him. He is in stripes. He is in a cell. His 
head is shaved. He is in tears. He is helpless, beaten, chained — 
killed, so far as his old life is concerned. You have won. How do 
you like your victory? Do you enjoy the picture now that it is 
complete? You painted it. Every savage instinct in your nature 
is expressed on the canvas.' 

"My soul revolted. I thought over my own life and the many 
unworthy things I had done to others, the injustice, the wrongs 
I had been guilty of, the human hearts I had wantonly hurt, the 
sorrow I had caused, the half-truths I had told, and the mitigating 
truths I had withheld, the lies I had allowed to go undenied. And 
then I saw myself also stripped, that is, stripped of all pretense, 
sham, self-righteousness, holding the key to another man's cell. 
I dropped the key. I never want to see it again. Let it be taken 
up and held by those who feel they are justified in holding it. I 
want no more jail keys. For the rest of my life I want to get a 
little nearer to the forgiving spirit that Christ expressed. 

"Isn't what I am accusing myself of, true of all of us? Think 
it over. Think of your own life. Think of the lives of those 
around you, and see if you cannot discern that we are all guilty. 
And then think whether or not you believe that society will be 
benefited by denying Ruef a parole, which only gives him a half 
liberty and still holds him under the restrictions of the prison until 
his term is finished. 

"I am surprised at the tone of the article you sent me, published 
in the Pacific Christian. It reads like a chapter out of the Old 
Testament rather than the New. But I fear that the woi'ld is be- 
ing governed more upon the lines of the Old Testament than the 
New. I agree with the article about the young men who have been 
sent to prison for years. I would release them all if I could. But 
I can't. I can't even release Ruef, because society has not ad- 
vanced far enough to make it possible. But I can at least be true 
to myself and express what I honestly feel. 

"I wish as a favor to me that you would send a copy of this 
letter to the Pacific Christian, as I am leaving for the East and 
will not have time. I should like them to know what I am writing 
you. Sincerely yours, Fremont Older." 

4R9 The San Jose Mercury, controlled by Congressman E. A. 
Hayes, in its issue of September 22, 1911, published one of these 
Ruef campaign articles. The following description of Ruef occurs: 

"Not many months have gone since Ruef found domicile in 



Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 453 

But in spite of all that is being done to create 
public opinion favorable to Ruef's release, the sober 
expression of machine-free press and public is that 
Ruef should be treated both on the score of parole 
and confinement precisely the same as any other pris- 
oner. 490 This attitude was clearly presented by the 
Fresno Republican at the time Ruef was found smug- 
gling chocolate sweets into the prison. 

In the attitude of prison officials toward Ruef, the 
Republican pointed out, there are two alternatives. 
"One," the Republican went on to say, "is the course of 
Warden Hoyle, in treating Ruef like any other prisoner, 
and disciplining him humanely but sternly, for any in- 
fraction of the necessary prison rules. The other is 
to let Ruef have privileges which the other prisoners 
do not and can not have. News travels nowhere faster 
or surer than in prison. If Ruef bribes guards, the 
officials may not know it, but the prisoners will. If Ruef 



States prison. But what changes Time has wrought in that brief 
period. The little man sits in his cell, lonely and solemn, as he 
meditates on the singularities of mankind. With no bitterness in 
his soul, without a thought of revenge twisting his sense of peace 
and good will toward man, he passes the time planning the com- 
forts of his fellow unfortunates and reading and rereading the let- 
ters that come so regularly from the loved ones whose burdens 
he so gladly carried and to whose joy he so gladly contributed. He 
is neither unhappy nor without hope." 

The same article contains another word picture — of Francis J. 
Heney. It reads: 

"But if Older has turned 'right about face,' Heney, the other 
member of the firm, has not. He remains the unforgiving, snarl- 
ing, short-haired bulldog, with his hand against every man, and 
every man's hand against him." 

Such is the character of the publicity campaign to release Ruef 
from prison. 

490 When in 1914 Governor Johnson became candidate for re-elec- 
tion, extraordinary efforts were made to compel him to pardon, or to 
consent to the release of Ruef on parole. So persistent were Ruef 
advocates, that the Governor found it necessary to issue a state- 
ment of his position regarding Ruef. That statement will be found 
in full on page xxviii of the Appendix. 



454 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 

may have smuggled sweets, the other prisoner, whose 
every nerve-cell shrieks in agony for cocaine, but who 
knows he will be thrown in the dungeon if he smug- 
gles it, will have no illusions about the smuggling 
privilege. If the very minions of justice do injustice, 
as between Abe Ruef and Convict No. 231,323, every 
man in that vast prison will be taught that he is the 
victim not of justice, but of force and favoritism. 
And if Ruef, at the expiration of a bare year, were to be 
paroled out, every other convict, whose very application 
can not be heard until he has served half his term, 
will know that he is suffering the penalty, not of his 
crime, but of his poverty and friendlessness. Shall Abe 
Ruef be suffered to teach that lesson? Shall he cor- 
rupt San Quentin prison as he did San Francisco? 
Or shall there be at last one place found where even 
Abe Ruef gets exact and equal justice?" 

Ruef is getting equal justice at State prison, not be- 
cause he corrupted San Francisco, not because a jury 
of twelve citizens found him guilty, not because seven 
out of eleven judges declared against him, but because 
the political machine, of which Ruef was one of the most 
powerful leaders, has been broken in California. Under 
the old order, to have kept Ruef jailed would have been 
impossible. 



CHAPTER XXX. 
Conclusion. 

After the McCarthy-Fickert election there were ru- 
mors that the graft defense, flushed with its successes 
in the overthrow of the prosecution, would resort to 
reprisals, by singling out persons prominent in the 
movement to enforce the law, for trumped-up charges 
and possible indictment. But aside from an abortive 
attempt to make it appear that former Supervisor 
Gallagher had fled the State at the behest of William 
J. Burns, reprisals of this nature were not attempted. 

The reprisals came in more subtle form. Members 
of the Oliver Grand Jury which had brought the in- 
dictments against Ruef and his associates, found them- 
selves marked men in business, political and social cir- 
cles. A member of the faculty of the State University 
who had been active in defending the cause of the 
prosecution, found his salary remaining practically 
stationary, while his associates received material ad- 
vances. When the directorate of the Panama-Pacific 
International Exposition Company was formed, finan- 
ciers who had supported the prosecution found them- 
selves barred from directorships. It may be said, how- 
ever, that the graft defense was well represented, one 
of the Exposition directors at least, Thornwall Mul- 
lally, having been one of those indicted in the graft 
cases. 



456 



Conclusion 



When the suggestion was made that James D. 
Phelan be made Pacific Coast representative in Presi- 
dent Wilson's cabinet, at once the graft defense pack 
was on his track, openly naming Mr. Phelan's assist- 
ance to the prosecution cause as reason sufficient why 
he should not be given the cabinet appointment. 491 

On the other hand, all danger of confinement in 
State prison being gone, the graft defense, through its 
various newspapers, urged incessantly that the past be 
forgotten, that San Francisco interests get together 
for the good of San Francisco. But this "getting to- 
gether" meant the banishing from political, social, and, 
as far as practical, business circles, all who had sided 
with the prosecution, thereby giving control of all 
activities to sympathizers with the graft defense. 

This is well recognized throughout the State, and 
the exclusive "get-together" movements are received 
with general ridicule. 492 The graft defense does not 



491 The San Francisco Argonaut, one of the principal apologists 
for the Graft Defense, in its issue of November 23, 1912, said of the 
suggestion of Mr. Phelan's name for the cabinet: "Ex-Mayor 
Phelan, of San Francisco, would be in line for cabinet honors if 
our local war of the roses were not so recent and if its unfragrant 
memories and resentments could be set aside. But this is not yet." 

492 The Fresno Republican in its issue of December 7, 1912, pays 
the following tribute to the graft defense's "get-together" plans: 

"They are going to hold a 'burn the hammer' celebration in San 
Francisco on New Year's eve, for the cremation of knocking. 

"It is a good idea, and one worth going the limit on. By all 
means, burn the hammers! But the only effectual way to get that 
done is for each fellow to burn his own. Unfortunately, when we 
begin knocking the knockers, the hammer we are after is usually 
the one with which the other fellow knocks us. There is no boost- 
ing way to dispose of the other fellow's hammer. If we go after it, 
we knock it, to the further multiplication of knocking. But if we 
begin at the other end, with our own hammer, that is real boosting. 
Besides, it gets the thing done. What we do to the other fellow's 
hammer may not succeed, and if it does, it is merely more knock- 
ing. But when we burn or bury our own, then we know that at 
least our part of the knocking is ended. 

"The purpose of the 'burn the hammer,' or 'get-together,' is, of 



Conclusion 457 

stand well in California. The "vindication" that was 
heralded throughout the country when the indictments 
were dismissed has not been accepted in California as 
generally as those most immediately affected could 
have wished. 

Then again, the corporations involved in the scan- 
dals, have a heritage from the graft defense which 
seems destined to bring confusion upon them at every 
turn of their development. Late in 1912, for example, 
a year and a half after the trolley-graft indictments 
were dismissed, the United Railroads attempted re- 
adjustment of its bonded indebtedness. This could be 
done only with the consent of the State Railroad Com- 
mission. The Commission, willing to allow any proper 
adjustment upon competent showing, asked that the 
corporation's books be produced. The books had, dur- 
ing the days of the prosecution, been sent out of the 
State. The United Railroads could not produce the 
books, and consent to its petition to readjust its finan- 
cial affairs was withheld until the books should be 



course, to bridge the breach left by the Graft Prosecutions. And 
to this end we suggest that 

"The higher-ups of the Pacific Union Club give a dinner at 
which Francis J. Heney and Rudolph Spreckels are the guests of 
honor. 

"The directors of the Panama-Pacific Exposition elect James D. 
Phelan one of their number. 

"William H. Crocker give a reception to such members of the 
Oliver grand jury as have survived the boycott. 

"The San Francisco Post issue a congratulatory edition, com- 
mending the achievements of Governor Johnson's administration. 

"Patrick Calhoun offer to take Abe Ruef's place in San Quentin 
for a year, and for alternate years hereafter, until they shall both be 
purged or pardoned of their joint guilt. 

"These suggestions are all purposely addressed to the side which 
is most clamorous for 'getting together.' Since they shout the 
loudest for 'harmony,' presumably they are the ones who want it. 
The way to get it is first to put away their own implements of 
discord. And no better pledges of intent to do this could be con- 
ceived than are contained in the suggestions here offered." 



45 8 



Conclusion 



forthcoming. Unofficial assurance was given officials 
of the corporation that investigation would not be made 
of its graft defense expenditures, 493 nor of any ex- 
penditures involved in the scandal of the alleged bribe- 
giving. But apparently even this assurance did not 
satisfy those connected with the United Railroads 
whose reputations, at least, were at stake. 494 The com- 

493 The machine-free press of the State, however, openly insisted 
that it would be a good thing- if full publicity of the United Rail- 
roads expenditures could be had. 

"What the missing books might contain of an interesting sort," 
said The Sacramento Bee in discussing the incident, "may be gath- 
ered from a 'list of expenses' submitted by Calhoun in lieu of the 
books, including an item of $314,000 to Patrick Calhoun for 'services 
rendered.' 

"The character of these 'services' may be surmised by anybody 
familiar with the history of the recent bribery and Graft Prosecu- 
tions in San Francisco. But surely the public and the stockholders 
and creditors of the United Railroads are entitled to specifications. 

"It is largely that corporations may not bribe in secure secrecy, 
or otherwise commit criminal acts without detection, that the Pro- 
gressive states are bringing them under strict regulation and in- 
spection by proper authority." 

494 The Railroad Commission of California, in its Decision 1536, 
made May 22, 1914, held "that the methods pursued by the former 
officials of applicant in handling the funds in their care amounts to 
nothing more than a fraud, not only upon the public forced to use 
an inadequate and unserviceable system, but upon the bond and 
note holders of such company." 

Of one transaction, in which President Calhoun was permitted 
to take $1,096,000 of the company's funds, which it was claimed he 
had invested in a land project in Solano, in which Mr. Calhoun was 
interested, the Commission said: 

"No proof was made to this Commission that any part of this 
money was actually invested in the so-called Solano project, but 
we are confronted by the fact that Mr. Calhoun, under authority 
of the board of directors, and ratified by the stockholders, took 
from the treasury of applicant $1,096,000, and whether he invested 
it in the Solano project or not is unimportant in the consideration 
of this railroad company as a public utility. 

"It seems that upon the taking of office by Mr. Jesse Lilienthal, 
the present president of the railroad company, Mr. Calhoun was 
forced to execute a promissory note for $1,096,000, payable one day 
after date, in favor of the railroad company, secured by stock of 
the Solano project; but the judgment of the value of this promis- 
sory note is perhaps best indicated by the fact that Mr. Lilienthal 
immediately wrote this note down in the books of the company as 
of a value of $1.00. 

"We hesitate to put in words a proper characterization of this 
transaction. In plain terms, Mr. Calhoun took from the funds of 
this public utility corporation over $1,000,000, when every available 
dollar was sorely needed properly to increase the facilities of this 
eompany so as to serve the community of San Francisco, and at a 



Conclusion 459 

pany's books were not opened for the Commission's 
inspection. 

By far the greatest sufferer from the graft defense 
was San Francisco. Here it was demonstrated that 
even with a District Attorney intent upon the discharge 
of his sworn duty, with upright trial judges on the 
bench, the machinery of the criminal law broke down 
when men with practically unlimited means were 
brought to bar. To accomplish this required a four 
years' contest, in which community resistance to po- 
lical corruption was overcome, the people misled, their 
minds poisoned against that which is wholesome, and 
made tolerant of that which is base and bad. 

The unhappy effects of this are just beginning to 
be understood. The evil of the graft defense will live 
long in San Francisco after the dismissal of the indict- 
ments. Four years after the defeat of the Graft Prose- 
cution, Referendum petitions against State laws have 
been forged in San Francisco, and the laws, which had 
been passed by the State Legislature and signed by the 
Governor, have been delayed from going into effect 
for nearly two years, because of the forgeries. And 
yet, although the forgers are known, their prosecution, 
except in one instance, has not even been attempted. 
Governor Johnson has called the attention of the Attor- 
ney-General of the State to this condition, and has 
urged him to undertake the prosecution of these forgery 
cases. 

time when this same company was urging upon this Commission 
the necessity of issuing further bonds to pay off maturing obliga- 
tions, and also at a time when admittedly the outstanding obliga- 
tions could not be paid at maturity by approximately $20,000,000." 

This enormous sum had been taken in gold at various times, 
ranging in amounts from $260 to $85,000. 



460 Conclusion 

Tenderloin interests at San Francisco now indicate 
even greater power in the community than they exerted 
during the worst days of Ruef-Schmitz regime. The 
same is in a measure true of the public service cor- 
porations. 

When District Attorney Langdon announced in 1906 
that public-spirited citizens would assist in meeting the 
expenses of running to earth the corruptionists that 
had San Francisco by the throat, prospect of law-en- 
forcement through the regular channels was welcomed, 
and ugly talk of lynch-law prevalent at the time, ceased. 
The success of the graft defense meant that the efforts 
to reach the corrupters of the municipal government 
through the courts had failed. San Francisco was 
beaten. In the community's present inability to pro- 
tect itself against the encroachments of the public 
service corporations, and to correct vice conditions 
which are far worse than in the worst days of the 
Schmitz-Ruef regime, the effects of that beating are 
seen. San Francisco will be long in recovering from 
the effects of her defeat. Because of the results of it, 
she finds herself handicapped in her race for Pacific 
Coast supremacy with Los Angeles, Seattle and even 
Oakland. And the prospects are at the close of the 
year 1914, that the burden of this handicap will be 
increased before it is diminished. In the old days an 
invading army conquered a city and sacked it. The 
System conquered San Francisco and is exploiting it. 

The defeat of the graft prosecution was a defeat for 
San Francisco alone. It was not a defeat for the State 
of California. 



Conclusion 461 

The evil influence of the graft defense did not 
reach beyond the metropolis. On the contrary, the suc- 
cess of the defense uncovered for the whole State the 
actual political conditions under which all California 
was laboring. 

The registration of 47,945 Republicans at San Fran- 
cisco to defeat Heney at the primaries, and the Re- 
publican vote of 13,766 at the final election, demon- 
strated the emptiness of partisan pretense. One of the 
immediate results was a uniting of all good citizens 
regardless of political affiliations for good government, 
and Hiram W. Johnson, Heney's associate in the 
graft trials, was in 1910, elected Governor of California. 
Four years later, James D. Phelan, Rudolph Spreckels's 
associate in financing the graft prosecution, was elected 
United States Senator from California, while Judge 
Lawlor was that year elected to the State Supreme 
Bench. Judge Dunne was in 1914 re-elected to the 
Superior Bench to serve until 1920. 

Decisions from the higher courts — to the lay mind 
astonishing; to authorities on questions of law, vicious 
and unwarranted — which set free men who had been 
convicted of dangerous felonies; scandals which grew 
out of these decisions ; the public's demonstrated help- 
lessness against them, aroused the State. By over- 
whelming vote California added to her Constitution a 
provision under which The People may by direct vote 
remove a corrupt or incompetent judge from the 
bench. 

The public had assumed that men trapped in bribe- 
giving would be measured by a fixed rule of the law, 



462 Conclusion 

and their proper punishment in due course be meted 
out to them. That anything else could be had not 
occurred to the average citizen. 

But the astonishing performances at the graft trials, 
the extraordinary anti-prosecution publicity campaign, 
and, finally, the amazing technical defense, and the 
failure of the graft defendants to take the stand and 
manfully deny under oath the charges brought against 
them, opened the eyes of the public to the fact that 
the methods of criminal procedure were sadly inade- 
quate. 

And the further fact was emphasized that while 
the weak points in the methods of bringing an of- 
fender to punishment could be used to advantage by 
the rich man, they were unavailable to the man without 
the means to employ a lawyer to present the techni- 
calities governing his case. 

Out of this conviction, came agitation for reform 
of the methods of criminal procedure. An elaborate 
plan for such reform was presented to the 1909 Legis- 
lature. 495 But the machine element controlled the com- 
mittee organization of both houses, and the measures 
were defeated. 

At the 1911 session of the Legislature, after John- 
son had been elected Governor, measures for the re- 
form of the criminal procedure similar to those defeated 
by indirection at the 1909 session, were introduced. 
Many of them became laws. But, unfortunately, certain 
labor leaders were made to believe that the measures 

495 These measures are described in "The Story of the California 
Legislature of 1909." The methods employed to defeat them were 
told in detail. See chapter "Defeat of the Commonwealth Club 
Bills." 



Conclusion 463 

were aimed at Labor. This led to opposition which 
resulted in the defeat of several of the proposed re- 
forms. 

One important constitutional amendment was, how- 
ever, presented to the people that goes far toward cor- 
recting the abuses which attended the graft trials. 
This amendment provides that "no judgment shall be 
set aside, or new trial granted in any criminal case 
on the ground of misdirection of the jury or the 
improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for 
error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, un- 
less, after an examination of the entire cause in- 
cluding the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion 
that the error complained of has resulted in a miscar- 
riage of justice." 

Not a vote was cast against this amendment in 
either house of the Legislature. The feeling against 
the use of trifling technicalities for the release of con- 
victed criminals which the graft cases had displayed so 
glaringly, was shown in the popular vote on this amend- 
ment ; 195,449 voted for the amendment, while only 
53,958 voted against it. 496 

The San Francisco graft prosecution succeeded in 
sending but one of the corrupters of the municipal 



496 Under the provisions of measures which became laws at the 
1911 session, it is held that it will be impossible hereafter to put 
grand jurors on trial as was done in the San Francisco graft cases. 
Hereafter, too, an indictment or information may be amended by 
the District Attorney without leave of the Court at any time be- 
fore the defendant pleads; and at any time thereafter in the dis- 
cretion of the Court where it can be done without prejudice to the 
substantial rights of the defendant. 

Another measure takes from a witness his privilege of refusing 
to give testimony on the grounds that it may incriminate him. The 
witness is safeguarded, however, by a provision that he shall not 
be liable thereafter to prosecution nor punishment with respect to 
the offense regarding which such testimony is given. 



464 Conclusion 

government to State prison. He, too, would in all 
probability have escaped imprisonment but for the ab- 
sence from the State of a single member of the Supreme 
Court at a critical moment. 

But the graft prosecution did something infinitely 
more important than the sending of a few corruptionists 
to cell and stripes. It awakened a State to its help- 
lessness against a corrupt system. The People arose 
in rebellion against the "System,'' and is laboring to 
throw the "System" off. 

In 1910 and 1911 a political revolution was worked 
in California. 

But the revolution had its beginning back in 1906, 
when Rudolph Spreckels guaranteed the expenses of 
the prosecution of the corrupters of the municipal 
government of San Francisco, and Francis J. Heney, 
as his share in the campaign, pledged his services. 

Had there been no San Francisco graft prosecution, 
there would, in 1910, have been no successful political 
uprising in California. Hiram W. Johnson would not 
have been a candidate for Governor. The accomplished 
reforms which are the boast of the State, and the 
models which other States are adopting, would still 
be the unrealized dreams of "reformers." The "Sys- 
tem" would still be in the saddle. 

The graft defense has left its mark of ill upon 
San Francisco. That city has borne the brunt of the 
injury because of it. 

The graft prosecution, by forcing the "System" out 
in the open, where all its power for evil can be seen, 
worked California inestimable good. And here, San 
Francisco, in common with the whole State, gains also. 



APPENDIX 



JUDGE LAWLOR'S RULING ON MOTION TO DIS- 
MISS GRAFT CASES, AUGUST 3, 1910. 

On April 25th, 1910, an application was made by Pat- 
rick Calhoun, Tirey L. Ford, Thornwell Mullally and Wil- 
liam M. Abbott to dismiss the indictments against them. 
The application is before the Court at this time for con- 
sideration. 

When the defendants pleaded not guilty they exercised 
their statutory right and each demanded severance from 
each other and from their co-defendants, Abraham Ruef 
and Eugene E. Schmitz. (Sec. 1098 Penal Code.) There 
have been five trials — three of Tirey L. Ford and one each 
of Abraham Ruef and Patrick Calhoun. 

The second trial of Patrick Calhoun was commenced 
on July 19th, 1909 (case No. 1437). Owing to the illness 
of one of his counsel the trial was suspended on August 
16th, 1909, and resumed on September 30th, 1909. On the 
following day the trial was ordered continued until Novem- 
ber 15th, 1909, on motion of the defendant, upon the ground 
of the pendency of a municipal campaign. 

On January 8th, 1910, Mr. Charles M. Fickert assumed 
the office of District Attorney. 

On February 7th, 1910, the District Attorney moved the 
Court to dismiss the remaining charges against these de- 
fendants (Sec. 1385 Penal Code), which motion was by the 
Court ordered denied. (Sec. 7, Art. I, and Sec. 19, Art. VI 
of the Constitution; Sees. 1041, 1042, 1126, 1385, 1386 and 
1387 Penal Code.) 

On February 14th, 1910, the parties announced that 
they were ready to resume the trial in case No. 1437 against 
Patrick Calhoun, but the Court continued the case for trial 
until February 17th, 1910. On the last named day the 
cause was ordered continued for trial until April 25th, 1910. 

On April 25_th, 1910, the four defendants interposed a 
motion to dismiss the remaining indictments against them. 
The further hearing of the motion was continued until 
July 29th, 1910. On the latter day the causes were con- 
tinued until this time. 

Two things are chiefly responsible for the Court's action 
in respect to the remaining indictments since the District 
Attorney moved to dismiss them on February 7th, 1910 — 
first, the Court's apprehensions based on the declared atti- 
tude of the said District Attorney toward the remaining 
indictments, and, second, the absence from the State of 



11 



James L. Gallagher, a material and indispensable witness 
in the said causes. The second reason will now be con- 
sidered. 

It was the theory of the People in the five trials re- 
ferred to that Abraham Ruef represented the defendants in 
the alleged bribery of the members of the Board of Super- 
visors, and that James L. Gallagher, one of its members, 
in turn represented Abraham Ruef in the transactions. In 
this way the Court is able to determine that the testimony 
of this witness is material, and now holds, as a matter of 
law, that unless additional testimony is produced, it is in- 
dispensable to the establishment of the res gestae. 

In the early part of December, 1909, it became known 
that the witness had departed from the State. Up to the 
present time it has not been shown whether he had been 
formally subpoenaed or was otherwise under the authority 
of the Court to appear as a witness in the trials of the 
remaining indictments. If he is subject to the authority 
of the Court in any of these cases his absence would con- 
stitute a criminal contempt, and he could be extradited 
from any other State having provisions of law similar to 
those of this State. (Sub. 4, Sec. 166, and Sec. 1548 Penal 
Code.) 

In this connection it may be proper to point out that 
practically ever since issue was joined on these indictments 
they have been on the calendar for trial, and that during 
the trials referred to the cases not actually on trial were 
from time to time called and the witnesses admonished by 
the Court to appear on the deferred date. But it has not 
been ascertained whether on this manner the missing wit- 
ness has been so admonished to appear so far as the re- 
maining indictments are concerned. 

In the month of January, 1910, the Court directed that 
all persons who could give testimony concerning the ab- 
sence of the witness be subpoenaed. On January 24th, 
1910, the first hearing was had, and on several occasions 
thereafter witnesses have been orally examined on the sub- 
ject. From this oral testimony it is difficult to determine 
the intentions of the witness concerning his departure from 
and his return to the State. It seems that in the latter 
part of November, 1909, he left for Europe, accompanied 
by his wife. Robert F. Gallagher, a brother of the wit- 
ness, testified in effect that the witness never stated he 
intended to absent himself as a witness in the graft cases 
and made no suggestion of that nature; that he, Robert F. 
Gallagher, gained no such impression from anything he 
did say, except that it was a disagreeable situation for him 
to be a witness; and that their, talk proceeded along the 



Ill 



line that there was not going to be any future trial in the 
graft prosecution. This brother testified further: 

"He did state on one occasion something to the effect 
that Burns had disappeared and that Heney had disappeared 
and that there wasn't any prosecution; that the incoming 
District Attorney would not certainly be in earnest in the 
prosecution." 

Other witnesses testified to a variety of facts touching 
the departure of the witness from San Francisco and^ his 
declarations on the general subject. Dr. Alexander War- 
ner gave testimony to the effect that he went to Europe 
on an Atlantic steamer with the witness and his wife. 
Thomas J. Gallagher, another brother, among other things 
quoted the witness to the effect that he was going to 
Europe, that he might settle in an eastern State, that he 
made no secret of his purpose, and that William J. Burns, 
special agent of the former administration in the Dis- 
trict Attorney's office, knew of his intention to leave. 
Nothing definite appears in the oral showing concerning 
his intentions on the subject of his return, and so far as 
that showing is concerned the point is more or less in- 
volved in conjecture. But on July 29th, 1910, Frederick 
L. Berry, the Assistant District Attorney, assigned to this 
department of the Court, filed an affidavit embodying clip- 
pings from the local newspapers of the previous month, 
which state that the witness was, at the time the articles 
were written, in Vancouver, B. C. From these clippings 
it appears that the witness intended to permanently locate 
in Vancouver. The only tangible evidence from the wit- 
ness himself, however, is found in his letter to Thomas 
J. Gallagher under date of June 29th, 1910, in which this 
excerpt appears: 

"In reply to your inquiry I cannot state when I shall 
return to San Francisco, if at all. I may remain here." 

In my judgment a review of the showing up to this 
time leads to the inference that the witness left this juris- 
diction and is remaining away because of some form of 
understanding or agreement. The circumstances under 
which he left California clearly show that he was acting 
guardedly, notwithstanding the testimony, which there is 
no reason to doubt, that he informed several persons of 
his intention to take a trip. When the quoted statement 
of Robert F. Gallagher was first made I was disposed to 
assume that the witness left the State principally because 
he believed the prosecution was at an end, and that he 
made his plans quietly so that the step would not occa- 
sion comment. In other v/ords, that he did not believe 
there would be any further attempt to prosecute the so- 



IV 



called graft cases. But from a study of the entire show- 
ing I cannot adhere to that theory. I repoat that up to 
the time his presence was discovered in Vancouver, the 
showing was uncertain as to whether he really intended to 
return to California, and if so, when he would return. It 
was to be seen that the action of the Court would be in- 
fluenced by this uncertainty, so when the exigencies of 
the situation called for a definite showing as to the wit- 
ness' intentions, he seems to suddenly appear in Vancou- 
ver, where, under the treaty conditions, he would be safe 
from extradition, and is promptly discovered by the re- 
porter of a New York paper. In the clippings his quoted 
statements on the subject of his intentions are unequivocal. 
He is to make his home in Vancouver. But his personal 
communication to Thomas J. Gallagher, already referred 
to, which he probably realized would be produced in Court, 
is significant in tenor and he is apparently less certain of 
his intentions. This would tend to make his future action 
consistent should he hereafter return to California. From 
the entire showing I do not entertain any serious doubt as 
to what his real purpose is. I am inclined to believe that 
when the necessity for his presence as a witness has passed 
he will return. To entertain any other view, or be in 
serious doubt on the point, is to ignore the inherent prob- 
abilities of the showing and to deny a fair consideration 
to the known history of this litigation. 

Now, it must follow that if the witness has left and is 
remaining away from the State because of an arrangement 
of some nature affecting these cases, the responsibility for 
his absence should be placed where it belongs. On April 
25th, 1910, the District Attorney stated to the Court: 

" . . . and it appearing also that James L. Gallagher 
left with the consent and connivance of those who had 
preceded me in office, I at this time do not wish to as- 
sume any responsibility for his disappearance. Whether 
he shall return or not I cannot say. Some of the wit- 
nesses who were called here testified that he went away 
with the intent and with the purpose of embarrassing my 
administration and that he was supposed to keep away until 
such time as certain persons would request his return. . ." 

The foregoing fairly states the position of the District 
Attorney on this point, as repeatedly expressed in Court 
since he first moved the dismissal of these indictments. If 
the charge that the former administration entered into a 
bargain with the witness to default be true, there would 
be no alternative but to dismiss the indictments without 
delay. But I have found no evidence in the showing tend- 
ing to support so grave a charge, and upon sound reason- 



ing it would seem to be opposed to every reasonable 
probability. According to the showing, William J. Burns 
left the State about three weeks in advance of the witness, 
and, so far as the Court is advised, he has not since been 
in the State. That the former administration may have 
distrusted the official intentions of the District Attorney 
toward these indictments might be assumed from all the 
surrounding circumstances. But it does not seem probable 
that the former administration would induce a material and 
indispensable witness to leave the State and thereby make 
it easy for the District Attorney to secure a result which 
otherwise might entail serious embarrassment. So far as 
the showing is concerned there is no tangible proof tend- 
ing to support the charge of the District Attorney, nor 
is there any proof which would justify such an inference. 

Nor, on the other hand, do I find any formal evidence 
in the showing which tends to bring the responsibility for 
the disappearance of the witness home to these defendants. 
In the absence of tangible proof neither side should be 
charged with so grave an act. But if there has been com- 
plicity on the part of either of the parties, every effort 
should be made before disposing of these cases finally to 
establish the facts. It has been pointed out that if the 
former administration entered into a bargain with the wit- 
ness looking to his absence, the application should be 
granted without delay. And clearly, if the defendants are 
responsible for the absence of the witness, under a famil- 
iar maxim of the law, the application should be promptly 
denied. (Sec. 3517 Civil Code.) 

There being no tangible proof, therefore, before the 
Court, of the complicity of the parties, should the pending 
application be granted at this time? 

A person accused of crime is entitled to a speedy trial. 
(Sec. 13, Art. I, Const.) 

This fundamental right has been made the subject of 
statutory provision. The second subdivision of Section 1382 
of the Penal Code provides that: 

"Unless good cause to the contrary is shown, the court 
must order the prosecution to be dismissed if the indict- 
ment is not brought to trial within sixty days after the 
filing thereof." 

More than sixty days have run in favor of this applica- 
tion, and the question presented at this time is whether 
the showing touching the absence of James L. Gallagher 
shall constitute "good cause" within the meaning of the 
law. This term must be construed and applied according 
to the peculiar circumstances of each case. It should be 



VI 



interpreted so that the rights of both parties shall be 
equally recognized. The absence of a material and indis- 
pensable witness for the People would, under proper cir- 
cumstances, constitute good cause, provided that good faith 
and diligence are shown in the effort to produce the wit- 
ness. In re Bergerow (133 Cal., 349) is a leading authority 
on this question and is almost invariably cited in support 
of applications of this character. It is proper to point out 
that in the prevailing opinion the Court studiously elim- 
inates from the pertinency of the authority the absence or 
illness of a witness for the prosecution. 

The conclusion I have reached is that under the law, 
and the surrounding circumstances, including the recent 
action of the witness, that another reasonable continuance 
should be directed in order, if possible, that the duty of 
the Court in the premises shall be rendered more clear. 
At this time the Court is not satisfied that the relief sought 
should be granted. On the other hand it is realized that 
a final decision should not much longer be delayed. In the 
determination of this matter the Court, while fully recog- 
nizing the rights of the defendants, is mindful of the rights 
of the People and its own sense of responsibility, and is 
anxious to avoid a decision which will serve as a mischie- 
vous precedent. 

It is idle to attempt to ignore the inherent probabilities 
of the situation presented. A material and indispensable 
witness is absent from the State, and the Court is called 
upon to intervene because the District Attorney has at 
practically every turn followed the lead of these defend- 
ants. Through the influence of unusual agencies the law 
has broken down, so far as these cases are concerned. The 
crimes charged are of the most serious nature, because 
such criminal activity tends to sap the very foundations of 
government. The statute of limitations has run against 
these charges and if the application is granted, therefore, 
there can be no further prosecution, no matter what de- 
velopments may follow. (Sec. 800 Penal Code.) In the 
trial of Patrick Calhoun the Court admitted evidence of 
a most extraordinary character on the theory of the People 
that it tended to show guilty consciousness on the part of 
the accused. This evidence was not contraverted. It in- 
cluded the dynamiting of the home of the witness under 
circumstances which threatened not only his life, but also 
the lives of several other persons. A certain other build- 
ing, the propertv of the witness, was subsequently blown 
up by the use of dynamite. If the apparent design on the 
life of the witness had been successful, the Court would be 
less perplexed in deciding a question of this character. It 



Vll 



is possible that these experiences and not the suggested 
arrangement with the witness are responsible for his ab- 
sence. The evidence also included an effort to suppress 
testimony by an attempt to induce a witness to leave the 
jurisdiction of the Court, and other matters of a serious 
nature. 

And, finally, while the Court is clear that it should not 
base any action at this time upon the assumption that 
either side is responsible for the absence of the witness, 
yet reason and the exercise of a sound discretion dictate 
that the Court should act with prudence. Before the in- 
dictments should be finally disposed of, every reasonable 
effort should be made to get at the truth of the situation. 
The disposition of grave charges other than on their 
merits is not to be encouraged and should not be allowed, 
except in the face of a strict legal necessity. Let the cases 
be continued until 10 a. m., Monday, August 29th, 1910. 
So ordered. 



HOW THE SUPERVISORS WERE BRIBED. 

Thomas F. Lonergan, when elected to the Schmitz-Ruef 
Board of Supervisors, was a driver of a bakery wagon. 
He recited at the trial of The People vs. Louis Glass, the 
manner in which he had been bribed by agents of the 
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company. Loner- 
gan's testimony was as follows: 

"I reside in Sanchez street, San Francisco. I have 
lived in San Francisco since March, 1879. I have a family 
composed of a wife and three children. I was in the bakery 
business. I was in that business quite a number of years. 
I worked latterly for Mr. Foley. I worked in a bake shop 
quite a while and also drove a wagon for him. I do not 
hold any official position now. I did hold the position of 
Supervisor of the City and County of San Francisco. I 
was elected Supervisor in November, 1905, and took office 
on January 7th or 8th, 1906. I know John Kraus. I first 
met him some time after my election at my home. I did 
not invite him to come there. 

"One morning, some time after my election, the doorbell 
rang, a gentleman was at the door and wanted to see me. 
I went downstairs. He asked me if I was Mr. Lonergan. 
I said yes. He says, 'The recently elected Supervisor?' or 
words to that effect. I said yes. He says, 'I don't think 
you are the man I wanted. I came out here from the 



Vlll 



East a few years back with a Mr. Lonergan, and I thought 
he was the one that might have been elected.' I said, 'No, 
you are mistaken, it is the other one,' or something like 
that. He then incidentally told me he was connected with 
the Pacific States Telephone Company, and would be pleased 
to take me around their works at any time that I would 
find it convenient. I answered him as well as I recall now, 
that I possibly would take it in some time. I subsequently 
went to the telephone company's office. To the best of 
my recollection I saw Mr. Kraus in the meantime before 
going there, and made an appointment with him. I don't 
well remember meeting him at the telephone company's 
office. I think where I met him was on the corner of 
Mason and Market or Powell and Market, one or the 
other, around there. That was by appointment. Then I 
went with him to the telephone company's plant on Bush 
street, I think, out in the Western Addition at that time. 
He took me through the works, showing me the works and 
the arrangements in connection with it, and how they 
treated their help, and stated to me they were installing 
another new plant, I forget now whether it was one or 
two or more. After we left there I had lunch with Mr. 
Kraus. I don't well remember where. He spoke about an 
opposition company in that talk. The opposition company 
was spoken of, considering the appliances they had, and 
the amount of work they were then doing, and the new 
switchboards they would put in, that it didn't appear neces- 
sary to have an opposition company here. Mr. Kraus paid 
for the lunch, I believe. 

"I am acquainted with Mr. T. V. Halsey. I first met 
him, I think, either on Pine or Bush street, to the best of 
my recollection. I. N. Copus introduced me to him. To 
the best of my recollection it was some time after meeting 
Kraus and before I took office as Supervisor. That meeting 
was by appointment. Mr. Copus made the appointment I 
believe. To the best of my recollection that was my first 
meeting with Mr. Halsey. I think I was introduced to him 
by Mr. Copus at the time and place of the meeting. We 
adjourned to lunch at a restaurant that we were standing 
in front of. We went upstairs in the restaurant, had some 
lunch. Nothing particular was spoken of there outside of 
the current topics. The room we lunched in was not a 
public dining room. Tt was a private room. Copus went 
up to lunch with us. I believe Mr. Halsey paid for the 
lunch. We were there possibly an hour or an hour and a 
half. We had Sauterne wine to drink, as well as I remem- 
ber. The next time T saw Halsey to the best of my recol- 



IX 



lection was at his office on Bush street, in the telephone 
building there. It was some time between the 12th and 
14th and the 20th of February, 1906, I should judge. I 
think I went there on that occasion on the invitation of 
Mr. Kraus, as well as I remember, that Mr. Halsey would 
like to see me. I found Halsey when I got there. I am 
not conversant with the building; I suppose the part of the 
building I met him in was his office. I don't remember 
whether there was any one else in the room. I had a talk 
with him in there. No one else was present while I was 
talking with him that I am aware of. Mr. Halsey, as well 
as I remember, spoke to me about the foolishness of having 
a second telephone system in San Francisco. He told me 
the same as Mr. Kraus had told me — all they had accom- 
plished, and that they were going to accomplish, and that 
it would cost merchants twofold for the other telephone, 
and they wanted to know if I would not be friendly toward 
them. I told him I was deeply impressed with the work- 
ings as I had seen them, and that I felt that I could be 
friendly to them. I cannot remember the exact words he 
then said at the time. The substance of it was that it 
would be to my interest to be friendly, or rather, that they 
would make it to my interest to be friendly to them, and 
I was told — I think it was at that meeting — that there 
would be five thousand dollars in it for my friendship 
down, and $2,500 the following year, provided I did not 
accept a commission, or any such thing as that while I 
remained a member of the Board of Supervisors. To the 
best of my recollection at that time I received from him 
one thousand dollars in currency.. I put it in my pocket 
and took it home. The next time I saw Mr. Halsey was 
some few days later. It was the Saturday previous to the 
passing to print of the ordinance relative to the Home 
Telephone Company. That meeting was held in a room in 
the Mills Building. I cannot well recollect whether I was 
telephoned for or not; I possibly must have been. The 
meeting was up in the building some few stories. To the 
best of my recollection it was on the side of the building 
that looked out on Bush street, and not very far from the 
corner of Montgomery street. I found Mr. Kraus there 
when I went in. There was no one else in the room 
where Kraus was. That room was furnished with a table 
and a couple of chairs. Well, he asked me if he could 
depend upon me as to my friendship in regard to the 
Pacific States Telephone Company, and I told him I saw 
no reason why he could not. I don't remember whether 
anything was said about the Home Telephone Company 



franchise. There may have been. I can't recollect just at 
this moment. He told me that he had a sufficiency of the 
members of the Board of Supervisors, to the best of my 
recollection, who were friendly towards the Pacific States, 
and that they did not particularly need Mr. Coffey, except 
that I had spoken well of him, and depending on my 
friendship, he gave me the four thousand dollars in cur- 
rency. During our conversation I had mentioned Mr. Coffey 
as a friend of mine that I thought was particularly friendly 
towards them. I don't well remember whether he then said 
he would see Mr. Coffey, or not, or whether he made 
answer. I do remember that he said at the latter meeting 
that they did not particularly need him, that he had a 
sufficiency of the members. I took it home and gave it to 
my wife. 

"To the best of my recollection I next saw Mr. Halsey 
at my home the latter end of the following week after I 
got the money. No one else was present when he talked 
with me. It was in the front room of my house." 

Supervisor Michael W. Coffey was a hack driver. At 
the Glass trial he told the manner in which the bribe-givers 
approached him. He said: 

"I have lived in San Francisco about forty years. I 
have been in the carriage business driving a hack. I own 
a hack of my own. My stand was on Fifth street, right 
opposite the Mint. I was elected a member of the Board 
of Supervisors in November, 1905, and took office early in 
January, 1906. I am a married man. My family consists 
of four girls and one boy. I am acquainted with T. V. 
Halsey. I first met him some time in the month of De- 
cember at my hackstand. I am acquainted with John 
Kraus. I first met him about the same time. At the time 
that I met Halsey at the hackstand, Kraus was with him. 
I am not sure whether it was the first time, but probably 
the second time. I think Mr. Kraus came to see me first, 
and Mr. Halsey came with him afterwards. Well, he, Kraus, 
just came up merely to introduce himself to me, and asked 
me how business was. There was nothing said at the time 
that he brought Halsey to me. There was nothing said 
pertaining to telephone matters at that time, neither; it 
was simply merely to give me an introduction and ask me 
up to have a drink on the corner of Jessie and Fifth streets. 
Nothing was said about the telephone service at that time. 
I next met Halsey a few days afterwards. Both Halsey 
and Kraus were there together at that time, and we spoke — 
they spoke to me about my telephone service, both home 



XI 



and in the drugstore in front of which I had my hack- 
stand, and asked me if the telephone service was satisfac- 
tory. I told them it certainly was, that I couldn't find any 
fault with either one. The drugstore 'phone I had nothing 
at all to do with, any more than I had the privilege of 
placing the number of the telephone upon my business 
cards so that my friends could know where to find me in 
case they wanted to telephone me. I paid for no service 
on that 'phone at all. My hackstand was right in front of 
the drugstore. I should judge Halsey and Kraus came 
around there to see me between three times and a half-a- 
dozen. I received telephone messages from Mr. Halsey 
several times. He called me by 'phone, he telephoned to 
the house, and to the stand, and wanted me to come down 
to see him. I went down to see him one time. He after 
that invited me around to the telephone company's offices, 
to view the system, but I never accepted his offer, I never 
went with him. The first occasion that I went down to 
the telephone company's office to see him he extended me 
an invitation to come around amongst the different branch 
offices there to see the system, how it was working, and 
show me the advantages of a one-system telephone. Kraus 
was there on one occasion. Somewhere around in the 
neighborhood of noon time, Mr. Kraus was there, and Mr. 
Halsey asked me if I had lunch. I told him no, not at 
that time, so he asked Mr. Kraus to take me out to lunch, 
excusing himself on the ground of a previous engagement, 
that he couldn't go to lunch, but he asked Mr. Kraus to 
take me out to lunch and Mr. Kraus did so. 

"I had a talk with Halsey in the Mills Building. I 
can't exactly tell the date, but it was on a Saturday, in 
and around noon time. I can't exactly fix the date. It 
was some time, I think, in the month of February. We 
caucused on the Sunday night, and it was Saturday, either 
the week prior to the caucus or the day before the caucus. 
This caucus was the Sunday prior to the passing of the 
ordinance to print which was on a Monday. I went to the 
Mills Building by telephone invitation of Mr. Halsey. When 
I got down there I took the elevator and went up on, I 
think, the seventh floor at the extreme end of the building, 
on one of the rooms facing on Bush street, and the other 
on Montgomery street. I found Mr. Halsey there and no 
one else with him. To the best of my recollection there 
was either a box or a chair and a table, and a telephone in 
there, and no other furniture at all in the room. Mr. Halsey 
when I went in, said, 'Good day, Mr. Coffey.' Said I, 'How 
do you do, Mr. Halsey?' I says, 'Did you telephone for 



Xll 



me?' He says, 'Yes, I want you to be friendly with the 
company,' and stepped into another room, the door leading 
into the Montgomery street entrance, and then came out 
with a parcel, a bundle, and handed it to me, and says, 
'I would like to have your friendship for the company.' I 
did not open the package at that time. Nothing was said 
then about the Home Telephone Company's application for 
the franchise. I took this package that he handed me home 
and put it in a box in the room. I did not open it when 
I got home, not at that time. Subsequently I did. When 
I opened it I found in it five thousand dollars in United 
States currency. That was very shortly after I had been in 
the Mills Building on that occasion. I think it was a few 
days after that. After putting this money in the box I 
kept it there." 



GALLAGHER'S ORDER REMOVING LANGDON 
FROM OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY. 

(October 25, 1906.) 

"To the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San 
Francisco: 

"Gentlemen — Pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of 
the City and County of San Francisco, and especially in 
pursuance of Sections 18 and 19 of Article XVI thereof, I, 
James L. Gallagher, Mayor of the City and County of San 
Francisco, do hereby suspend William H. Langdon, District 
Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, and an 
elected officer thereof, for cause, as hereinafter assigned and 
specified, and I hereby notify you of such suspension and 
the causes therefor, which are as hereinafter assigned and 
specified. 

"Said cause is contained in the following specifications, 
which specifications I hereby also present to you as the 
written charges against said William H. Langdon, District 
Attorney as aforesaid, and I hereby present said specifica- 
tions of causes of such suspension as written charges against 
said William H. Langdon, District Attorney, suspended by 
me as aforesaid. 

"Specification 1: 

"Neglect of Duty. 

"In this, that for a period of about 30 days prior to 
the presentation of these charges the said William H. Lang- 
don, District Attorney as aforesaid, has absented himself 



Xlll 



from the City and County of San Francisco, without leave, 
and has neglected his official duties, being during that time 
engaged in the canvass and campaign for the office of 
Governor of the State of California. 

"That during said time, owing to the recent disaster, a 
large number of acts of violence have occurred at the 
hands of criminals congregated in said city, resulting in 
an excessive and unusual number of murders, maimings, 
assassinations, assaults and other crimes of violence, tend- 
ing to render the city unsafe and to injure its reputation, 
yet the said District Attorney wilfully, without permission 
from any of the public authorities of said city and county, 
did absent himself a greater portion of said time from said 
city and county, and so negligently conducted and per- 
formed the duties of his said office as District Attorney as 
to render no active or efficient assistance to said city and 
county in the proper prosecution, detection or preventing 
of any of said crimes, and during the main portion of said 
period did leave his said office without the aid of his super- 
intendence, direction or service, thereby being guilty of 
inefficiency in such public office and being negligent and 
inattentive in the performance of his public duties at a 
time when the unusual activity of those engaged in crimes 
of violence demanded and required his personal presence 
and greatest personal activity to aid in preventing or at- 
tempting to prevent, detecting or attempting to detect or 
punish the said crimes or the persons guilty thereof. 

"Specification 2: 

"Neglect and Dereliction of Duty. 

"In this, that during the period of about 30 days last 
past, the newspapers of the City and County of San Fran- 
cisco have published and proclaimed that the said William 
H. Langdon. as District Attorney, and others co-operating 
with him, were, and for months past had been, in the pos- 
session of evidence sufficient to convict certain officials of 
the city and county of serious crimes. These charges have 
been repeated daily and within the knowledge and cogni- 
zance of said District Attorney, and yet notwithstanding 
said knowledge and said purposes, the said District Attor- 
ney has failed to cause the arrest of any of said officials, 
and if the charges so publicly made are and were not true, 
the said District Attorney had knowledge of said falsity 
and untruth, and yet notwithstanding said knowledge has 
failed to cause the arrest of the publishers or editors of the 
newspapers for publishing said statements for criminal libel. 

"Specification 3: 



XIV 

"Neglect and Violation of Duty. 

"That under the provisions of the Charter of the City 
and County of San Francisco, it is part of the duty of the 
District Attorney, when required, to advise the Board of 
Police Commissioners, the Chief of Police, the Board of 
Health, or the Coroner as to the matters relating to the 
duties of their respective offices, yet notwithstanding said 
official duty, the said William H. Langdon, as such District 
Attorney, has entered into a combination and conspiracy 
for political purposes and effect to bring unmerited discredit 
upon said officials or some of them, and has failed to advise 
them relative to their duties, and has assumed a position 
and attitude inconsistent with his duty to the Police Com- 
missioners and the Chief of Police, thereby tending to im- 
pair and demoralize the Police Department of said city at 
a serious and critical time. 

"Specification 4: 

"Neglect and Violation of Duty. 

"That the said William H. Langdon, being the District 
Attorney of said City and County of San Francisco, as 
aforesaid, during period above mentioned, in addition to 
neglecting his public duties, as above set forth, instead of 
aiding the authorities of said city and county, did on the 
contrary engage in and assist in a combination in the 
interest of certain insurance corporations and other persons 
to injure and defame the character of the Chief Executive 
of this city, Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz, in substance as 
follows: 

"A large number of German insurance companies, having 
lost many millions of dollars by the conflagration of April 
18, 1906, having denied their liability, Eugene E. Schmitz, 
Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, deemed it 
advisable in the interest of the upbuilding and rehabilitating 
of the city, to visit the German Empire in his official 
capacity for the purpose of stating the true facts concern- 
ing said conflagration to the home officials of said com- 
panies and to use his personal influence wherever the same 
would be available in the German Empire, with a view to 
cause the said insurance companies to pay the said losses; 
and deeming said matter one of great public interest, the 
said Mayor did obtain from the Board of Supervisors a 
leave of absence from the City and County of San Francisco 
for a period of 60 days from October 1, 1906; and after he 
left on said mission, a combination, plot and plan was 
formed for the purpose of defaming and injuring and weak- 
ening the standing and reputation of said Eugene E. 



XV 



Schmitz, in order that his said attempts might be discredited 
and to destroy whatever influence the Chief Executive of 
this city might have in dealing with the said insurance com- 
panies at their home offices and in obtaining influence 
abroad to compel said companies to properly recognize their 
obligations; and that as a part of said scheme, it was 
determined to print and publish in the newspapers of San 
Francisco charges against the said Mayor which were false, 
malicious and slanderous and known so to be by the par- 
ties engaged in said scheme, and among other things said 
persons so engaged did cause it to be published that the 
Chief Executive of this city was a fugitive from justice 
and had absconded from the City and County of San Fran- 
cisco; and that the said William H. Langdon, as District 
Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, and 
acting in his capacity as such, did aid, assist and abet and 
further the said scheme as aforesaid, and has become and 
is an active party thereto to the end that said Mayor should 
be induced to return to San Francisco to defend himself 
against such charges before he could have time to accom- 
plish the said purpose for which he went to said German 
Empire. 

"Specification 5: 

"Violation of Duty and Use of Office for Ulterior Purposes. 

"That during the fall of 1905, one Francis J. Heney, in 
a public speech in said city and county, aspersed the char- 
acter and good name of a prominent citizen of this com- 
munity, and stated that he knew him to be corrupt, and 
said citizen having instantly demanded that said Heney be 
compelled to make proof of said assertions and said Heney 
having been compelled to appear before the Grand Jury of 
said City and County of San Francisco with reference 
thereto, there admitted that he had made such statements 
with'out any personal knowledge regarding the same, which 
facts were widely published at the time, and brought said 
Heney into obloquy and contempt, from which time said 
Heney had been possessed of a purpose to effect a personal 
revenge both against the object of his false charges and 
against Eugene E. Schmitz, Mayor of San Francisco, and 
all of these facts were and are well known to said William 
H. Langdon, as District Attorney as aforesaid; yet not- 
withstanding said knowledge and within the month of 
October, 1906, the said William H. Langdon, in order to 
enable said Heney to use public office, position and power 
to gratify his spirit of revenge and malice, did appoint 
said Heney Assistant District Attorney of said city and 



XVI 



county, and did turn over to him the powers of office of 
said District Attorney in order that he might gratify his 
private revenge and malice. 

"Specification 6: 

"That prior to such appointment as such Assistant Dis- 
trict Attorney, said Francis J. Heney had publicly assailed 
the Judges of the Superior Court of the city and county as 
corrupt and crooked, and had denounced all or nearly all 
of them as dishonest and corrupt, and yet has failed at any 
time to make proof of such charges, which facts were all 
well known to said William H. Langdon, District Attorney 
as aforesaid, from the time of the utterance, which was long 
anterior to the time of said Heney's appointment by said 
Langdon, and said Langdon also knew that said Heney 
frequently, while intoxicated, made grave and serious 
charges involving the personal character of citizens of this 
city, yet notwithstanding such knowledge said William H. 
Langdon did appoint said Heney to such office, knowing 
that the said Heney in such office would be required to 
appear before the Judges whose character he had thus 
aspersed, and to practice in their courts, did appoint said 
Heney to said office, which appointment is not conducive to 
the proper co-operation which should exist between the 
Judges of the Superior Court and the office of District 
Attorney. 

"Specification 7: 

"That said Francis J. Heney at and prior to the time of 
his appointment as Assistant District Attorney was the 
representative of the corporation controlling the street car 
system of said city and county in a certain dispute be- 
tween said corporation and its employes, That the appoint- 
ment of said Heney to said office will, in regard to the 
enforcement of law against said corporation, be prejudicial 
and detrimental to the interests of said city and county. 

"Specification 8: 

"That prior to the turning over of said District Attor- 
ney's office and its powers to said Francis J. Heney, as 
hereinabove specified, the City and County of San Francisco 
had intended to procure its own water supply and thereby 
to prevent the exorbitant charges for water now exacted 
by the private corporation controlling the city's water 
supply, and that it was about to take proceedings to pro- 
vide a safe and secure supply of water for said City and 
County of San Francisco for domestic use, extinction of 
conflagrations, etc., and that such purpose was greatly to 



XV11 



the interest of said City and County of San Francisco, 
That said corporation now supplying water to said city and 
county is bitterly opposed to the acquiring of a water sup- 
ply to the City and County of San Francisco on account 
of its present monopoly. 

"Said Francis J. Heney has been and is attorney em- 
ployed by said Water Company, and his attorneyship for 
such company is inconsistent with the holding of a place 
as Assistant District Attorney, and against the best inter- 
ests of the people of San Francisco, 

"Specification 9: 

"That in the interest of the corporations and persons 
before mentioned, or some or all of them, together with 
persons unknown, large sums of money have been and are 
being raised for the purpose of slandering, defaming and 
injuring the reputation of said Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz, 
and of suborning perjury against him, thereby injuring the 
interests of said city and county and its residents and 
inhabitants; and said William H. Langdon as such District 
Attorney, knowing said facts, by the appointment of said 
Heney, is knowingly aiding and abetting the said plot and 
scheme. 

"Specification 10: 

"Violation of Duty and Ulterior Use of Office. 

"That since the appointment of said F. J. Heney as an 
Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of San 
Francisco by said William H. Langdon, the said Langdon 
and the said Heney have caused to be published or have 
been parties to the publication of open and covert threats 
against the Superior Judges of the City and County of San 
Francisco for the purpose of influencing the judicial action 
of said Judges. 

"Specification 11: 

"That the appointment of said Heney as such Assistant 
District Attorney was made by said Langdon in furtherance 
of the combination aforesaid, and at the dictation of cer- 
tain newspaper influences and individuals, who have con- 
tributed many thousands of dollars to further the political 
ambitions and aspirations of said William H. Langdon and 
other persons, and to secure through the appointment of 
said Heney the consummation of a political plan and the 
wreaking of their private revenges against Eugene E. 
Schmitz, Mayor of San Francisco, and the Board of Super- 
visors and the Police Department of the City and County 
of San Francisco and their political supporters, and to 
generally disrupt the business and proper government of 
16 



XV111 



this city, and also for the purpose of attempting to influ- 
ence the ensuing election. And said combination is also in 
pursuance of a well-defined and organized plan for the 
purpose of controlling and subjugating the labor market 
and the wage-earners. 

"And the said William H. Langdon turned over said 
office of District Attorney as aforesaid to said Francis J. 
Heney with the intent and purpose and with the under- 
standing that said Francis J. Heney would and should 
abuse such position, and use his said position as a deputy 
in a substantial control of said office of District Attorney 
to gratify his own private and personal revenge, and also 
with the intent that said Francis J. Heney, through said 
office, should produce before the Grand Jury of said city 
and county illegal and hearsay evidence which by law said 
Grand Jury is forbidden to act upon, and procure such 
Grand Jury to return indictments against innocent citizens 
of said city and county upon such illegal and hearsay evi- 
dence for the purpose of gratifying the private revenge of 
said Francis J. Heney and the political ambitions of said 
William H. Langdon. And said William H. Langdon also 
further turned over said office and power to said Francis J. 
Heney with the intent and purpose that said Francis J. 
Heney in such position should advise such Grand Jury that 
matters and acts not constituting an offense at law were 
indictable offenses, and thus and thereby falsely and un- 
lawfully procure indictments against innocent citizens of 
said city and county. 

"Specification 12: 

"That in addition to the purposes hereinabove specified 
as a foundation and reason for the acts set forth, that all 
the acts hereinabove charged and set forth as having been 
done, aided, abetted, procured or assisted by said William 
H. Langdon as said District Attorney, were so done and 
performed by said William H. Langdon as such District 
Attorney to promote his own political ambitions and upon 
and at the eve of an election about to occur in the State 
of California, at which said William H. Langdon is a can- 
didate for Governor, all with intent to deceive and mislead 
electors and voters and to procure an increased vote for 
himself as such candidate for Governor. 

"Inefficiency in the office of District Attorney, and 
neglect on the part of the District Attorney and his office 
to perform the duties of his office. 

"Date-d, San Francisco, October 25, 1906. 

"JAMES L. GALLAGHER, 
"Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco." 



XIX 



THE RUEF "IMMUNITY CONTRACT." 

The "immunity contract" given Ruef was as follows: 

"Whereas, Abraham Ruef of the City and County of San 
Francisco has agreed to impart to the District Attorney of 
the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, 
a full and fair statement and disclosure, so far as known to 
him, of all crimes and offenses involved in the so-called 
'graft' prosecutions or investigations now and heretofore 
conducted by said District Attorney by whomsoever such 
offenses or crimes may have been committed, and has agreed 
in making such disclosure and statement to state fully and 
wholly all the facts and circumstances known to him in, 
about, and surrounding the same, and in making such state- 
ment and disclosure to tell the truth, the whole truth and 
nothing but the truth; 

"Now, Therefore, In consideration of the premises it is 
agreed by the undersigned that if said A. Ruef shall do said 
things and immediately make such full and fair disclosure 
of all such crimes and offenses involved in the so-called 
'graft' prosecutions and investigations above referred to, and 
known to him, and shall state and disclose to the under- 
signed the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, and shall make full and fair disclosure of all said 
crimes and offenses known to him, and of all the facts and 
circumstances in, about and surrounding the same and known 
to him, and shall at all times whenever called upon, before 
any court, testify in regard thereto and to the whole thereof 
fully and fairly, together with all the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the same, so far as the same are known to him, 
and shall state, tell and testify on oath the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth therein, then and in that 
event the undersigned, deeming it to be in the interests of 
public justice, and believing that said A. Ruef will thereby 
be equitably entitled to such consideration in accordance 
with the time-honored custom and practice of prosecuting 
officers in both State and Federal jurisdictions throughout 
this country, and in line with common law precedents. 

"1. Will grant and obtain for said A. Ruef full and 
complete immunity from prosecution or punishment for all 
and any of said offenses and crimes involved in said so- 
called 'graft' prosecutions or investigations, and will not 
prosecute him for any thereof. 

"2. Will cause said A. Ruef to be jointly and not other- 
wise indicted with all and any others against whom indict- 
ments have heretofore been or may hereafter be returned 
or found for or upon any crimes or offenses in which said 



XX 



Ruef has participated or is alleged to have participated to 
this date; provided, however, that the undersigned shall not 
be bound to include any of the present members of the 
Board of Supervisors in any such indictments. 

"3. Will, as any one of said joint indictments relating 
to a specific subject matter shall be taken up for trial, after 
the jury has been impaneled and sworn to try the same, 
dismiss the same and all other indictments and charges on 
the same general subject matter as against the said Ruef, 
under the provisions of section 1099 of the Penal Code of 
the State of California, and will at the same time dismiss 
all indictments relating to the same general subject matter, 
which are now pending against said Ruef singly. 

"Any and all indictments or charges upon any general 
subject matter of which one shall not have been brought 
to trial before December 31st, 1907, shall be dismissed as 
to said Ruef and said Ruef discharged on or before Decem- 
ber 31st, 1907, under the provisions of section 1099 of the 
Penal Code where applicable, or under provisions of other 
sections of said code in cases where said section 1099 shall 
not be applicable. 

"It is however expressly agreed that in any event all in- 
dictments and charges now pending or hereafter to be 
brought against said Ruef (except action No. 305 which is 
herein otherwise provided for) shall be dismissed as against 
said Ruef under the provisions of section 1099 of the Penal 
Code where the same may be applicable and when said 
section is not applicable shall be dismissed under other 
provisions of the Code, all prior to December 31st, 1907; 
provided, the undersigned District Attorney shall not be 
re-elected as such District Attorney in November, 1907, and, 
in any event, prior to said District Attorney resigning or 
otherwise surrendering or giving up his office or terminating 
his tenure thereof, it being the understanding and agree- 
ment that each and every indictment and charge now pend- 
ing or hereafter to be brought against said Ruef shall be 
absolutely dismissed. 

"Provided, that said Ruef shall have fully performed so 
far as may have been in his power the spirit and letter of 
his agreement herein. 

"4. All and any indictments or charges which are to be 
found or returned against said Ruef jointly or otherwise, 
shall be returned and found not later than October 1st, 1907, 
unless hereafter otherwise mutually agreed. 

"5. In the event of the prosecution of said Ruef by any 
other officer or person on account of any of such crimes or 
offenses committed or participated in or alleged to have 



XXI 



been committed or participated in by said Ruef to this date, 
the undersigned will employ every legitimate influence and 
power to secure a dismissal thereof, and in the event that a 
conviction shall be had in any thereof, the undersigned 
hereby agree to apply to the Governor of the State of Cali- 
fornia for the pardon of said Ruef therefor or therein and to 
use all legitimate influence and power to secure such pardon. 
"6. It is understood and agreed that, notwithstanding 
the scope and effect of the language used throughout this 
agreement, it does not and shall not be construed to apply 
in any respect or particular to that certain indictment No. 
305, or the offense charged therein, which is now pending 
against said Abraham Ruef jointly with Eugene E. Schmitz, 
in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Fran- 
cisco, State of California, in Department No. 6 thereof. 
"Dated, May 8th, 1907. 

"WM. H. LANGDON, 
"District Attorney of the City 
and County of San Francisco. 
"FRANCIS J. HENEY, 
"Assistant District Attorney of the 
City and County of San Francisco. 
"Agreed to: 
"A. RUEF." 



"IMMUNITY CONTRACT" GIVEN SUPERVISORS. 

"San Francisco, Cal., July 30, 1907. 

"Whereas, James L. Gallagher, E. J. Walsh, F. P. Nich- 
olas, C. J. Harrigan, Max Mamlock, J. J. Furey, Jennings 
Phillips, Thomas F. Lonergan, James F. Kelly, L. A. Rea, 
W. W. Sanderson, Daniel C. Coleman, Sam Davis, A. M. 
Wilson, M. F. Coffey, all of the City and County of San 
Francisco, State of California, have each made to me a 
disclosure of certain crimes and offenses committed by him- 
self, and by himself jointly with others and by others, which 
he claims to be a full and fair disclosure thereof, so far as 
known to him. 

"Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, deem- 
ing it to be in the interest of public justice, and believing 
that each of the above-named parties will thereby become 
equitably entitled to such consideration, in accordance with 
the time-honored custom and practice of prosecuting officers, 
in both State and Federal jurisdictions throughout this 
country, and in line with common law precedence, it is 



XX11 



agreed by me that if he has made a full and fair disclosure 
of all of such crimes and offenses and has stated to me the 
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and if he 
shall whenever called upon to do so by me, or by any 
other officer on behalf of the People of the State of Cali- 
fornia, to again make a full and fair disclosure of such 
crimes and offenses, together with the facts and circum- 
stances surrounding the same and the persons therein in- 
volved, in any cause, action or proceeding whatever in 
regard thereto, fully and fairly, together with the facts and 
circumstances surrounding said crimes and offenses and the 
persons involved, and tell and testify the truth, the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth, then, and in that event, 
each one of them who so does shall not be prosecuted, 
complained against or indicted for any of said crimes or 
offenses, or his connection therewith. 

"It is understood that the making or verifying of any 
affidavit or answer in the case of 'Langdon vs. Ruef, et al.,' 
heretofore brought in the Superior Court of this city and 
county, is included in this agreement; and it is further 
understood that Fred P. Nicholas shall not be further prose- 
cuted in the case now pending against him in which he is 
under indictment in this city and county, upon the charge 
of accepting and agreeing to accept a bribe from one 
Holmes. 

"Signed: W. H. Langdon, District Attorney; Francis J. 
Heney, Asst. Dist. Atty. Witness: James L. Gallagher." 

The People vs. Ruef, page 1382. 



DISTRICT ATTORNEY LANGDON'S PLAN FOR RE- 
ORGANIZING THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. 
(See Chapter XVII.) 

"San Francisco, July 9, 1907. — To the San Francisco 
Labor Council, the Merchants' Association, the Building 
Trades Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of 
Trade, the Real Estate Board and the Merchants' Exchange: 
Gentlemen — We respectfully submit to your consideration 
and ask your co-operation in the carrying out of the fol- 
lowing proposed plan for the selection of a Mayor of the 
City and County of San Francisco for the unexpired term 
of Eugene F. Schmitz, who, having been elected Mayor of 
the City and County of San Francisco in November, 1905, 
was on the 13th day of June, 1907, convicted of a felony; 
to wit, of the crime of extortion, by a jury in Department 



XX111 



No. 6 of the Superior Court of the City and County of 
San Francisco, State of California. Thereafter, upon the 
8th day of July, 1907, judgment upon the conviction was 
duly pronounced and entered, by which a sentence was 
imposed of five years' imprisonment in the State Prison at 
San Quentin. 

"The Political Code of this State, and the charter of the 
City and County of San Francisco, both provide that the 
office becomes vacant when the incumbent is convicted of a 
felony, and in several decisions our Supreme Court has held 
that the words 'convicted of a felony,' signify the verdict 
of a jury. That court has also held that this provision of 
the code and charter is self-acting, and that the vacancy 
is created 'eo instanti,' upon the happening of the event, 
and that all that is necessary is for the appointing power 
to fill the vacancy thus created. By virtue of the conviction 
of Eugene E. Schmitz, the office of Mayor of the City and 
County of San Francisco became vacant. Upon the 9th day 
of July, 1907, the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to the 
charter, elected as Mayor to fill the vacancy thus created 
Dr. Charles Boxton. This action was taken to avoid legal 
complications in the interim, before a permanent selection 
of Mayor could be made, and it is thoroughly well under- 
stood that the selection of Dr. Charles Boxton is merely 
temporary. 

"The conditions surrounding the present Board of Super- 
visors have been so completely explained, through the public 
press, that it is unnecessary to go into further detail in that 
regard than to say that Dr. Boxton has offered to resign 
his office as Mayor, as soon as a suitable successor has 
been found. In the present unprecedented condition of the 
municipal government, circumstances have made it the duty 
of the District Attorney, in the interest of the public wel- 
fare, to take the initiative, in the endeavor to find such a 
successor. 

"It is the desire of the District Attorney as speedily as 
possible to confine the operations of his office entirely to 
those duties ordinarily incumbent upon it. The next election 
for city officers takes place in November of this year, but 
the situation of the city government, and the material con- 
ditions obtaining in the city with regard to necessary public 
improvements, render it absolutely indispensable that we 
proceed with the utmost energy to obtain for the office of 
Mayor a man of unblemished integrity and great executive 
ability. 

"The District Attorney and his associates, realizing that 
the selection of a Mayor to fill the unexpired term in ques- 



XXIV 



tion should be made by as representative a body of the 
people as possible, have deemed it wise to call together a 
convention that will be, as nearly as circumstances and the 
time at our disposal permit, fairly representative of the 
community at large. For that purpose they have decided 
to call together a convention composed of thirty delegates, 
fifteen of whom shall represent labor, and the remaining 
fifteen shall represent employers generally. 

"It is, of course, impossible on account of the limited 
time at our disposal to accord representation to all the 
organized bodies in the city entitled to the same. All that 
we can reasonably be expected to do is to make a sincere 
and earnest effort to have the convention composed of 
delegates from such well-known organized bodies, large and 
varied in membership, that the people generally will be 
satisfied that the plan of selection is fair, reasonable and 
democratic. 

"The prosecution in the graft cases feels that it is 
highly desirable to keep politics out of the organization of 
the city government as much as possible until the people, 
in the manner ordained by law, have an opportunity at the 
ballot-box again to express their will directly. 

"We address this communication and invitation to the 
following bodies, to wit: The San Francisco Labor Coun- 
cil, the Merchants' Association, the Building Trades Council, 
the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, the Real 
Estate Board and the Merchants' Exchange. We respect- 
fully request the foregoing associations to send delegates 
to the proposed convention on the following basis of appor- 
tionment, that is to say, that the two bodies representing 
labor shall select fifteen delegates, eight of whom shall be 
selected by the San Francisco Labor Council and seven by 
the Building Trades Council, and the remaining fifteen 
members of the convention shall be selected, three each, by 
the remaining five bodies above mentioned. 

"It will be appreciated that it is necessary to impose a 
time limit within which the selection of delegates shall be 
made, and the subsequent nomination of a Mayor by the 
convention shall be accomplished. Tn that view we ask that 
a response to this invitation, containing the names of the 
delegates selected, be delivered to the District Attorney's 
office, 2181 Fillmore street, on or before Saturday, July 13, 
1907, and that the Mayor be nominated within five days 
thereafter. The success of this plan, in our judgment, de- 
pends absolutely upon the harmonious co-operation of all 
sections of our people, who, we believe, are fairly repre- 
sented by one or more of the foregoing associations. Con- 



XXV 

sequently we deem it essential to prescribe as a condition 
for the assembling of the proposed convention that this 
invitation shall be accepted by all of these bodies. 

"This plan for the selection of a Mayor is the result of 
most patient, thorough and anxious deliberation on the part 
of those associated in the graft prosecution, and its single 
purpose is to satisfy, so far as in our power, the desire of 
all good citizens to sink factional and political differences 
and choose for Mayor a man who will be generally recog- 
nized and accepted as representative of the whole people, 
who will bring to all industrial disputes a spirit of con- 
ciliation and harmony, and who will be possessed of the 
capacity, energy and honesty needed in the great work of 
rehabilitating our city and restoring it to normal conditions. 
We desire that perfect freedom and independence of action 
shall govern the convention from its inception to its close, 
and accordingly the District Attorney and his associates will 
wholly refrain from any participation after the convention 
has assembled. I have the honor to be, 
"Yours very truly, 
"W. H. LANGDON,' District Attorney." 



ROOSEVELT'S LETTER TO SPRECKELS ON THE 
GRAFT SITUATION. 

"The White House, Washington, June 8, 1908. 

"My Dear Mr. Spreckels — Now and then you and Mr. 
Heney and the others who are associated with you must 
feel down-hearted when you see men guilty of atrocious 
crimes who from some cause or other succeed in escaping 
punishment, and especially when you see men of wealth, 
of high business and, in a sense, of high social standing, 
banded together against you. 

"My dear sir, I want you to feel that your experience 
is simply the experience of all of us who are engaged in 
this fight. There is no form of slander and wicked false- 
hood which will not as a matter of course be employed 
against all men engaged in such a struggle, and this not 
only on the part of men and papers representing the lowest 
type of demagogy, but, I am sorry to say, also on the part 
of men and papers representing the interests that call them- 
selves pre-eminently conservative, pre-eminently cultured. 

"In such a struggle it is too often true that the feeling 
against those engaged in it becomes peculiarly bitter, not 
merely in the business houses of the great financiers who 
directly profit by the wrongdoing, but also in the clubs, in 



XXVI 



certain newspaper offices where business interests exercise 
an unhealthy control and, I regret to add, in other news- 
paper offices which like to be considered as to a marked 
degree the representatives of the cultivation and high social 
standing of the country. 

"Now, I do hope that you and your colleagues will treat 
all this bitterness with entire disregard. It is of small con- 
sequence to you, or to any of us who are engaged in this 
work, whether men think well or ill of us personally; but 
it is of very great consequence that we should do the work 
without flinching, on thel one hand, and on the other hand, 
without losing our good-humored common sense, without 
becoming angered and irritated to a degree that will in any 
way cause us to lose our heads. 

"Therefore, I hope that you and Heney and your asso- 
ciates will keep reasonably good-natured; but that above all 
things you will not lose heart. You must battle on valiantly, 
no matter what the biggest business men may say, no 
matter what the mob may say, no matter what may be said 
by that element which may be regarded as socially the 
highest element. You must steadfastly oppose those foolish 
or wicked men who would substitute class consciousness 
and loyalty to class interest, for loyalty to American citi- 
zenship as a whole, for loyalty to the immutable laws of 
righteousness, of just and fair dealing as between man and 
man. 

"It is just as bad to be ruled by a plutocracy as by a 
mob. It is profoundly un-American and, in a social sense, 
profoundly immoral, to stand for or against a given man, 
not because he is or is not a brave, upright and able man, 
but because he does or does not belong to a labof union or 
does or does not represent the big business interests. In 
their essence, down at the foundation of things, the ties that 
are all-important are those that knit honest men, brave 
men, square-dealing men, together, and it is a mighty poor 
substitute if we replace these ties by those that bind men 
together, whether they are good or bad, simply because 
they follow a particular business, have a given social stand- 
ing or belong to a particular organization. It is an evil 
and a dreadful thing for laboring men to endeavor to secure 
the political dominance of labor unions by conniving at 
crookedness or violence, by being 'loyal' to crooked labor 
leaders, for to be 'loyal' to the fancied interests of the 
unions when they are against the laws of morality and the 
interests of the whole people means ultimately the destruc- 
tion of the unions themselves, as an incident to-the destruc- 
tion of all good citizenship. 



XXVI 1 

"But it is, if anything, an even more evil and dreadful 
thing to have the merchants, the business men, the captains 
of industry accessories to crime and shielders and support- 
ers of criminals; it is an even more dreadful thing to see 
the power of men high in State politics, high in finance, 
high in the social life of the rich and fashionable, united 
to stifle the prosecution of offenders against civic integrity 
if these offenders happen to be their friends and associates; 
and most evil of all is it when we see crooks of a labor 
party in offensive and defensive alliance with the crooks of 
a corporation party. Labor unions and corporations alike 
should be heartily supported when they do good work, and 
fearlessly opposed when they stand for what is evil. The 
best kind of wage worker, the best kind of laboring man, 
must stand shoulder to shoulder with the best kind of pro- 
fessional man, with the best kind of business man, in put- 
ting a stop to the undermining of civic decency, and this 
without any regard to whether it is a labor union or a 
corporation which is undermining it, without any regard 
to whether the offender is a rich man or a poor man. 

"Indeed, if there can be any degrees in the contemptuous 
abhorrence with which right thinking citizens should regard 
corruption, it must be felt in its most extreme form for the 
so-called 'best citizens,' the men high in business and social 
life, who by backing up or by preventing the punishment of 
wealthy criminals set the seal of their approval on crime and 
give honor to rich felons. The most powerful ally of law- 
lessness and mob violence is the man, whoever he may be, 
politician or business man, judge or lawyer, capitalist or 
editor, who in any way or shape works so as to shield 
wealthy and powerful wrongdoers from the consequences of 
their misconduct. 

"You have heart-breaking difficulties with which to con- 
tend. You have to fight not onl}' the banded powers of 
evil, but, alas, that it should be said, the supineness and 
indifference of many good men upon whose zealous support 
you had a right to feel that you could rely. Do not be 
discouraged; do not flinch. You are in a fight for plain 
decency, for the plain democracy of the plain people, who 
believe in honesty and in fair dealing as between man and 
man. Do not become disheartened. Keep up the fight. 
"Very sincerelv vours, 

"THEODORE ROOSEVELT. 

"Rudolph Spreckels, Esq., 
"San Francisco, Cal." 



XXV111 

GOVERNOR JOHNSON'S STATEMENT REGARDING 

RUEF'S IMPRISONMENT. 

(See Chapter XXIX, page 453.) 

Ever since Abraham Ruef was taken to San Quentin an 
organized and systematic agitation has been carried on to 
effect his release, and all that power, influence and money 
and favorable publicity could do to manufacture public sen- 
timent for him has been done. His case has ever been be- 
fore the people, and never since his confinement at San 
Quentin has he been permitted to be in the category of 
the ordinary prisoner. 

Purposely have I heretofore refrained from any public 
utterance upon the subject, and this for reasons that may 
be obvious. Ruef's partisans now charge his failure to ob- 
tain his release to me. 

In so far as I have expressed my views to certain mem- 
bers of the Prison Directors, and their views accord with 
mine, I accept the responsibility. 

I do not believe that Ruef should be paroled at this 
time. I insist that he shall be treated just like any ordi- 
nary prisoner, neither more harshly nor more leniently. 

As vigorously as I am able, I demand that there shall 
be no special privilege in the prisons of the State of Cali- 
fornia, and that when special privilege has been banished 
from every department of government, it shall not be per- 
mitted, no matter what the power or threats, to creep into 
our penitentiary. 

The grossest injustice that could be committed against 
the other 3,300 men confined in our State prisons would be 
to single out the one rich, powerful and conspicuous of- 
fender and, because of his riches and his influence, grant 
him what is denied to the humble and friendless prisoner. 
If prisons are to be maintained, and the system in vogue 
continued, all prisoners must be treated exactly alike. 

Since the parole law went into effect, the Prison Direct- 
ors have continuously acted under a rule which required, 
save in exceptional cases, the service of half of the net 
sentence before an application can be heard. In the Rob- 
erts case, recently decided, the Supreme Court held this 
rule to be illegal, but also held that paroles rested in the 
absolute discretion of the Prison Directors, and that in de- 
termining whether or not parole shall be granted, it was 
the right and duty of the Board to take into account the 
length of sentence, the time served, etc. 

As I understand the attitude of the Directors, they in- 
sist that in the matter of granting paroles, although appli- 
cations may be made after one year, it is neither unjust 



XXIX 



nor unfair nor illegal that prisoners be required, save in 
exceptional cases, to serve half the net sentence. 

This rule is applicable to 3,300 prisoners, most of them 
unknown and unheard of. It is demanded that another 
rule be made for Ruef. 

Ruef's sentence was fourteen years. His net sentence 
will be eight years and ten months. Half of the net sen- 
tence will be four years and five months. He was received 
in San Quentin about March, 1911. If required to serve 
half his net sentence, presumably he will be paroled about 
August, 1915. Purposely, apparently, misapprehension has 
been created about the recent parole of Dalton. Dalton 
desired to be liberated before half his net sentence had 
been served, and was not. He was granted a parole at the 
last meeting of the Prison Directors, which takes effect 
some months after the completion of half of his net sen- 
tence. 

The Recent Action of the Prison Board. 

In behalf of the parole of Ruef it is insisted that any 
man is entitled as a matter of right to a parole after one 
year's imprisonment. I will not subscribe to this doctrine. 
It has been asserted that the Supreme Court has so de- 
cided. This is not true. The Supreme Court simply deter- 
mined that after one year the prisoner had the right to 
make his application, but that his parole rested absolutely 
thereafter in the discretion of the Prison Board. 

At the last meeting of the Prison Directors 78 men ap- 
plied for parole, Ruef among them. None of these had 
served half his net time and this fact was known to all the 
members of the Prison Board. To four members of the 
Prison Board before that time every application had been 
presented with the history of the case, and with all the 
facts that had been filed concerning it. Every man, prison 
director or other, knows the facts of the Ruef case. The 
78 were all denied parole. When the Ruef people assert 
he had no hearing, they mean he had no such hearing as 
Ruef desired. When they shout that his case was not con- 
sidered, they mean not considered as Ruef demanded. If 
the hearing had been as Ruef and his partisans had staged 
it; if Ruef had delivered an oration, taken down by the 
shorthand reporter, brought for the purpose; if Ruef had 
dominated the entire situation, and the Directors had 
yielded to his power and his influence; if Ruef - had been 
paroled, what a virtuous and glorious Prison Board it 
would have been! But the hearing being otherwise than 
had been staged, the determination being other than what 
the power of Ruef demanded, the Prison Board is abused 



XXX 



and denounced; not denounced or abused because 77 other 
men were not paroled (they are unknown, poor, helpless, 
without friends), 'but abused and denounced because one 
man, Ruef, was not paroled; because one man, Ruef, was 
treated exactly as all others were treated. 

The Charge of Bitterness and Vengeance. 

I resent any imputation of bitterness or revenge on my 
part toward Ruef. I have neither. More than two years 
ago I expressed what I write to-day — that for the sake of 
society and the unfortunates confined in prison, Ruef must 
be treated like all others similarly situated. To yield be- 
cause of fear to the persuasion, cajolery or the threats of 
a powerful prisoner, is to cause the iron to enter the soul 
of every obscure and friendless prisoner, and to make every 
other one of the 3,300 men in our jails know that even in 
prisons class distinctions prevail, and to add to the bitter- 
ness and the hopelessness of men confined. 

The bitterness and revenge are on the other side of 
this controversy. It has become necessary to make this 
statement because of the unmerited abuse of the Prison 
Board, and because some individuals, while begging mercy 
for Ruef, have without mercy sought Ruef's release by 
threats of annihilation and destruction of all opposed. 

The Plea That the Past Be Forgotten. 

Often we hear that Ruef is the only one who has been 
punished of those guilty of the particular crimes of which 
he was a part, and that for this reason should be liberated. 

If three men committed a murder, two escape and are 
never found, and the third is convicted, ought he to be re- 
leased because he is the only one punished? 

It is unnecessary, however, to discuss this phase of the 
case. After conviction and imprisonment, if clemency be 
asked, ordinarily the only question that can be considered 
is whether the prisoner is guilty or innocent. Does any 
person claim Ruef to be innocent? If guilty, then to him 
must apply the usual prison discipline and rules. 

There is to-day in the same prison with Ruef a poor, 
uneducated, friendless Greek, the product of the graft prose- 
cution just as Ruef is. Claudianes is serving a life sentence 
for dynamiting Gallagher's residence and almost murdering 
seven people. Claudianes was paid to do the dynamiting 
that Gallagher might be put out of the way. He was the 
ignorant, sodden instrument of men who would not stop 
even at murder; but he was only the miserable tool after 
all. No appeal has been made to me for Claudianes. No 
petitions have been presented in his behalf, no organized 



XXXI 



effort for his release, no threats of political annihilation 
unless clemency be extended to him. Why? Is it because 
Claudianes is unknown, ignorant, friendless, moneyless? 

The Unjust Charge of Racial Prejudice. 

Every cheap politician has been quick to seize upon the 
Ruef case and endeavor to make political capital for himself 
or create hostility to me out of it. Among the baseless 
and outrageous things that have been published is that 
Ruef is not granted special privileges and immunities be- 
cause of racial prejudice. When Ruef was denied parole, 
denied with him were men of many races. No one has 
claimed that these were denied parole because of race 
prejudice. 

In San Quentin to-day are thirty-one Jews. Thirteen 
of these, for one reason or another, have at times lost their 
privileges. Is it possible that Ruef is the only man to be 
considered? No complaint is made for the thirty-one, or 
for the thirteen. Since February 1, 1912, twenty-seven Jews 
have been paroled from San Quentin. Six of these have 
been returned for violations of parole. In relation to the 
twenty-seven or the six there has been neither outcry nor 
protest nor publicity nor effort of any sort. Why the as- 
tounding, organized effort and publicity campaign for Ruef 
alone? 

The appointments that have been made by this adminis- 
tration include Rabbi Meyer, H. Weinstock, Paul Sins- 
heimer, Simon Lubin, Miss Steinhart, Julius Jacobs, E. 
Franklin, Louis Frankenheimer, A. Sapiro, Jacob Alexander, 
A. Bonnheim, Miss Peixotto, Judge Cerf and many others. 
No list of more able and patriotic men and women in the 
service of any State could be furnished than this. 

Is Ruef the sole test of every question? 

To two young men of Jewish faith lately have been 
granted pardons. No tremendous petitions loaded down 
with the names of politicians, no extraordinary publicity 
was presented in their behalf. 

Is there no man in the list of appointees to whom in 
pride we may all yield our praise? Is there no man among 
the 3,300 prisoners in San Quentin and Folsom who justly 
can arouse efforts in his behalf? Or is the sole test of 
official action by the Prison Directors of California or the 
Chief Executive of the State to be the disregard of every 
other man's rights and the granting to Ruef alone of a 
privilege that none other enjoys? 

California Prisons To-day. 

In the discussion that has ensued from the Ruef case 



XXX11 

and because of the Ruef case, the prisons have been said 
to be the one part of the present administration that is 
not progressive, and that they are yet a relic of the Herrin 
machine. Nothing could be further from the fact. I chal- 
lenge contradiction of the following statements: 

California is in the forefront of all the States in the 
management of her prisons. In matters of food, shelter, 
clothing, employment, recreation, medical attention, oppor- 
tunities for education, general freedom consistent with dis- 
cipline, encouragement of decent tendencies, and in the 
number of paroles (although these have been granted under 
the half term rule), no State has gone further. 

Within the past three years the strait-jacket, the water- 
cure and the hooks, once so freely used, have not been 
tolerated. Every form of corporal punishment has been 
abolished. When prisoners are received the effort is made 
to get the history of the crime and possible cause of it, 
and then to apply corrective measures intelligently. As 
soon as received, every newcomer is given a thorough phys- 
ical examination and his teeth are looked after by a den- 
tist. It not infrequently happens that the first place a man 
is quartered in is the hospital. Special attention is given 
to tuberculars, alcoholics and dope fiends. Wassermann 
tests are made for the slightest indication of blood taint, 
and the best treatment afforded. After the physician and 
dentist conclude their examinations, the newcomer is turned 
over to the Director of Education, who endeavors to take 
the man's mental measurement and get at his moral status. 
There are now 200 pupils in the day school at San Quen- 
tin, and three rooms of thirty each in the night school. 
The educational facilities are being constantly increased. 
Two hundred and twenty-six are enrolled in the academic 
courses with the University of California and by cor- 
respondence are receiving their training from our great 
institutions of learning. The State Use system, which was 
enacted in 1911, furnishes work in industries for the State. 
In the matter of food the State purchases the best and 
the rations issued are abundant. Sanitary conditions are a 
model in the newly constructed portions of the prison and 
the best possible in the old construction. 

In the last three years 1372 paroles have been granted 
by this harsh, cruel and outrageous Prison Board, as against 
1132 granted in all the years from 1893 to 1910 inclusive. 
The paroles have been granted, however, justly. Because 
one was not granted unjustly and unfairly, the record of 
the Prison Board counts for naught. 

I have purposely refrained from discussing the character 



XXX1U 

of Ruef's crimes or any matters extraneous to the one issue 
presented. I have tried to make clear that I believe Ruef 
should be treated just as the least known prisoner is treated. 
That his advocates wish him to be treated otherwise because 
he is Ruef will be clear to any who will reflect that had 
Ruef been paroled and the other 77 denied parole there 
would have been no agitation; if Ruef were granted what 
others were denied, there would be no fulminations against 
the Prison Board and petty politicians would not have 
seized upon recent events to bow and scrape and bend and 
crawl to the organized power of Ruef. 



SCHMITZ'S ATTEMPT TO CONTROL SAN FRAN- 
CISCO RELIEF FUNDS. 

In the early part of June, 1906, it was agreed that a 
committee consisting of Benjamin Ide Wheeler, Judge W. 
W. Morrow and James D. Phelan should go to Washing- 
ton, in order to interest Congress in some project for 
financing the rebuilding of San Francisco. 

Before their departure, Mayor Schmitz invited them and 
other members of the Committee of Fifty to his residence, 
where a luncheon was served. During the luncheon he 
stated that the Board of Supervisors were about to resume 
their public functions for which they were elected by the 
people, and the private persons who were administering the 
affairs of the city doubtless would employ their abilities 
for the rehabilitation of their own business, and he sug- 
gested that the relief fund be turned over to the Board of 
Supervisors for distribution. Judge Morrow, Mr. Phelan and 
others protested that it was not the function of the Super- 
visors to distribute relief, and that there was a trust rela- 
tionship existing between the donors and the finance com- 
mittee of the Relief and Red Cross Funds. After the lunch- 
eon, the Mayor handed Mr. Phelan his transportation, but 
later in the afternoon Mr. Phelan, suspicious of his purpose, 
sent word to the Mayor that he had decided to remain in 
the city. He remained behind to protect the funds. 

As subsequently developed in the graft investigations, 
the Supervisors had accused the Mayor of abandoning the 
city government to his enemies, and insisted upon the en- 
joyment of all the rights and privileges of their office, and 
that the work of distributing relief at that time was the 
principal business of the city. 

17 



XXXIV 

RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OF PROSECU- 
TION FROM JUNE, 1906, TO MAY 17, 1909. 

(As shown by testimouy taken at trial of Patrick Calhoun.) 
RECEIPTS. 

Subscription account $ 73,384.75 

Subscription account R. Spreckels 138,478.05 

Cash received by W. J. Burns 1,278.70 

Refunded by the Bulletin account Older case 250.00 

$213,391.50 
DISBURSEMENTS. 

W. J. BURNS ACCOUNT: W. J. Burns account, per- 
sonal, $12,357.45; office expenses, $1,911.43; office furniture, 
$671.50; carriage hire, $27.25; auto hire, $2,700.75; auto ex- 
pense, $4,162.36; traveling expense, $1,302.15; telegrams, 
$797.79; The Bulletin, $309.55; incidentals, $158.50; paid for 
account City and County of San Francisco, $223.52; detective 
services, $70,572.65; detective expenses, $.27,277.35; extra sal- 
aries, $778.55. Total, $123,250.80. 

F. J. HENEY ACCOUNT: Rent, $3,186.25; office ex- 
pense, $1,522.02; private exchange and operator, $1,949.22; 
telegrams, $316.82; postage and messenger expense, $280.26; 
traveling expense, $118.45; office salaries, $8,684.67; office 
furniture, $433.50; auto and carriage hire, $957.05; steno- 
graphic and legal expense, $2,147.37; detective expense, 
$4,232.61. Total, $23,828.22. 

SUNDRY DISBURSEMENTS: P. Dolman, $5,087.65; 
Hiram W. Johnson, $11,000.00; J. J. Dwyer, $13,400.00; C. W. 
Cobb, $10,000.00; legal expense, official count for judges, 
$191.50; George J. Cleary, $70.00; L. Kavanaugh, $506.20; 
D. M. Duffy, $1,878.85; W. J. Burns, $17,195.00; Jas. Foley, 
$1,010.00; Miler & Co., $40.00; automobiles, $5,100.00; auto 
expense, $815.98. Total, $66,295.18. 

Total disbursements . . $213,374.20 

Balance, cash 17.30 

$213,391.50 



ITEMS, W. J. BURNS ACCOUNT. 

Personal: Salary, $8,548.80; subsistence, $2,081.75; rent, 
$1,726.90. Total, $12,357.45. 

Office Expenses: Rent (R. L. Radke Co.), $935.00; 



XXXV 

telephone, P. S. T. & T. Co., $398.93; light and heat— E. D. 
Feil, $25.00; W. G. Stafford, $8.00; mantels, $0.95— $33.95 ; 
towels (Star Towel >Sup. Co.), $15.80; newspapers, $46.40; 
P. O. Box, U. S. A., $12.00; stamps, U. S. A., $20.40; Purity 
Water Co., $12.00; advertising— Call, $1.60; Examiner, $3.40 
—$5.00; car fare, $3.20; stationary— Library Bureau, $7.40; 
Mysell-Rollins, $3.00; Barry Co., $9.75; Brown & Power, 
$59.90; E. H. Wobber and others, $76.70— $156.75; typewriter 
expense— Vaughn, $56.30; Revalk, $77.10; Underwood, $5.50 
—$138.90; stenographic, $43.80 (L. F. Hurlburt, et al.); 
incidentals — pans, $0.40; opening Marchand's safe, $10.00; 
safe dep. Crocker, $6.00; painting floor, $1.00; N. Y. Ex- 
change, $0.95; express charges, $8.40; keys, $3.25; paint, 
$1.00; tel. directory, $1.50; stars (spec), $5.25; city directo- 
ries, $9.00; elect, buzzer, $1.35; show cards (A. Unsworth), 
$18.50; show card frames (Young & Rhodes), $2.00; whet- 
stone, $0.70; hauling, $5.00; moving safe (Gorham & Thom- 
as), $15.00— $89.30. Total office, expenses, $1,911.43. 

Office Furniture: Lamp, $3.55; two desk lamps, $7.80; 
J. Breuner Co., $68.00; water heater, $19.20; Library Bureau, 
$78.00; Ladd's Gun Store, $55.50; safe (Freeman, Brewster, 
McCabe), $165.00; 2 gas heaters, $13.10; Spencer Desk Co., 
$37.50; Geo. Walcom (curtains) $3.35; E. Emerson (desk), 
$10.00; Olympic Arms Co., $28.55; Library Bureau, $40.50; 
L. & E. Emanuel, $12.00; Acme Furn. Co, $96.75; Hale's, 
$23.20; C. P. Stanton, $9.50. Total, $671.50. 

Carriage Hire: Kelly, $2.50, $4.00, $5.00, $3.00, $12.75. 
Total, $27.25. 

Auto Hire: Scott, $15.00, $5.00, $50.00, $65.00, $10.00; 
H. M. Owens, $20.00; W. J. Burns, $90.00; March 30th, 
$207.50; Ruef's arrest, $10.00; F. J. Heney, $10.00; W. J. 
Burns, $5.00; April 27th, $32.50; L. Heidinger, $25.00; Auto 
Liverv Co, $73.50, $92.50; Kelly, $32.50; Otis Patkhill, 
$45.00; Auto L. Co, $538.00; A. S. Lathaw, $105.00; Auto 
Livery Co, $296.50, $60.00, $20.00; M. Mamlock, $17.50; auto 
Livery, $78.00; Cal. & Coulter, $25.00; F. Coulter, $42.50; 
Auto Livery Co, $25.00; Auto Livery Co, $288.00; Zim- 
merline Bros, $5.75; Auto Livery Co, $132.50, $22.50, 
$190.50, $35.00, $22.50; Broadway Garage, $8.00. Total, 
$2,700.75. 

Auto Expense: Goggles, $3.50; sundries, $9.35; Harris 
Rubber Co, $120.98; Harris Rubber Co.. $70.10; Geo. P. 
Moore Co, $12.30; Geo. P. Moore Co, $9.35: Harris Rub- 
ber Co, $48.58; Chanslor Lyon, $30.88; Harris Rubber Co.. 
$24.39; Bauer Lamp, $1.50; Bauer Lamp. $4.50; Auto Liverv. 
$132.00; Auto Livery, $2.00; Chans. & Lyon, $12.75; Chans. 
& Lyon, $14.05; G. P. Moore, $26.90; G. P. Moore, $6.12; 
Arca'de Garage, $51.20; towing auto, $5.00; Irvine Mch. Wks, 



XXXVI 

$114.60; Harris Rubber Co., $6.00; Franklin Car, $59.12; 
Gillig & Son, $9.00; Gillig & Son, $5.00; Arcade Garage, 
$149.45; Arcade Garage, $134.25; G. P. Moore Co., $3.00; 
H. W. Bogen, $103.50; H. W. Bogen, $127.00; Pioneer 
Auto Co., $0.75; Pioneer Auto Co., $5.40; Gorham Rubber 
Co., $35.00; Berg Auto Supply Co., $1.50; Pioneer Garage, 
$6.00; Keenan Bros., $51.80; Keenan Bros., $23.05; Pioneer 
Garage, $186.70; Diamond Rubber Co., $222.50; Pioneer 
Auto Co., $2.50; Pioneer Auto Co., S24.00; Auto Livery Co., 
$166.00; G. P. Moore, $2.50; G. P. Moore, $4.50; Harris 
Rubber Co., $2.25; Arcade, $151.60; Arcade, $151.50; Bogan, 
$9.75; Bogan, $39.00; Pioneer, $3.00; Pioneer, $1.00; tire 
repair, $0.75; Pacific Gar., $12.85; Pacific Gar., $97.40; Arcade, 
$123.35; Keenan, $11.00; Keenan, $13.95; Chans. & L., $3.25; 
Chans. & L., $2.50; Bogen, $9.85; Bogen, $7.00; Osen & 
Hunter, $109.45; Pacific Gar., $5.25; Pacific Gar., $70.00; 
Irvington Garage, $71.50; Pioneer, $8.50; Pioneer, $6.00; 
J. E. Elkington & Sons, $55.50; Continental R. Co., $88.88; 
Schwartz & Gotlieb, $8.00; C. & L., $12.45; Pacific, $9.75; 
Pacific, $11.25; Spreckels Garage, $384.85; Sunset Garage, 
$14.50; Spreckels Garage, $82.65; Pioneer, $7.00; Letcher, 
S. Jose, $4.00; Keenan, $104.05; Pioneer Auto Co., $10.50; 
Pacific, $29.10; Halls Auto Rep., $32.30; Studebaker, $17.91; 
Arcade, $159.15; Spreckels Garage, $185.25; Jerome Garage, 
$2.25; Miller Bros., $8.75; Goodyear, $5.00; Cr. H. W. Bogen, 
$10.00. Net total, $4,162.36. 

Traveling Expense: Kendall to Portland, $20.00; Ferry, 
$1.05; Halsey, $493.40; Geo. Burns, round trip home, $130.00; 
baggage transfer, $1.50; trip to Oakland, auto, etc., $7.10; 
trip to Oakland, auto, etc., $6.60; B. T. Block to San 
Jose, $2.15; ferryage auto, etc., $15.35; ferryage auto, etc., 
$6.60; F. A. Leach, $230.00; B. A. Libby, $100.00; ferryage, 
auto, etc., $1.90; ferryage auto, etc., $1.90; ferryage auto, etc., 
$1.00; W. J. Burns to Los Angeles, $57.40; W. J. Burns, 
$2.10; Slater witness Ford case, $168.90; trips Okd. Galla- 
gher case, $13.20; Marie Ware McK. Port. S. F. Ret., $50.00; 
Cr. F. H. Leach, witness Ford case, $8.00. Net total, 
$1,302.15. 

Telegrams: $797.79. 

The Bulletin: 30,000 papers (10-31, 1908) $309.55. 

Incidentals: Christmas turkeys, $37.85; 5 glove orders, 
$10.00; theater party, $6.00; C. P. Stanton (burglar alarm), 
$57.25; S. F. Call 1400 Jones, $2.25; expense account Blake 
case, $3.50; lunches, W. J. Burns et al., $41.65. Total, 
$158.50. 

Paid for account City and County of San Francisco: 
Exchange on Washington, D. C, sent to F. A. Leach, wit- 
ness, to cover expenses to S. F., $250.00; less amount re- 



xxxvu 

funded bv City and County of San Francisco, $26.48 — 
$223. 52 

Detective Services and Expenses: D. F. Cecil, services 
$2,396.00, expenses $942.50; H. J. Woolman, services $476.00, 

expenses $328.00; R. J. Bergen, services $708.00, expenses 
$510.50; R. H. Perry, $3,095.00, expenses $1,318.05; I. H. 
Henderson, services $350.00, expenses $188.85; E. S. Spauld- 
ing, services $2,820.00, expenses $550.70; W. W. Farrell, 
services $704.00, expenses $196.50; L. G. Carpenter, services 
$225.00; expenses, $170.20; R. S. Spaulding, services $2,042.00, 
expenses $378.25; J. G. Lawlor, services $2,837.50,- expenses 
$1,221.63; I. J. Scott, expenses $30.00; E. G. Borden, serv- 
ices $78.00; P. Hendirard, services $202.00, expenses $200.55; 
R. J. Burns, $2,810.00, expenses $2,076.47; S. S. Simon, 
services $206.00; B. Kohlman, services $248.00, expenses 
$18.75; G. E. Burns, services $2,510.00, expenses $4,369.62; 
C. F. Oliver, services $2,920.00, expenses $833.85; C. P. 
Fox, services $472.50, expenses $265.35; S. G. R. Ollsen, 
$40.00; G. W. Hess. $1,595.00, expenses $1,250.22; J. Mc- 
Carthy, services $1,313.00, expenses $227.35; J. C. Saulman 
services $110.00, expenses $1.20; L. Pring, services $44.00 
L. Cullen, services $60.00; M. C. Doyle, services $52.00; D 
M. Duffy, services $150.00; Chas. Wyman, services $20.00 
A. Steffens, $45.00; A. Greggains, services $780.00, expense: 
$665.85; J. H. Shiner, services $480.00, expenses $310.80 
P. F. Roller, $290.00, expenses $349.20; P. E. Sowers 
services $410.00, expenses $284.10; T. R. Sullivan, services 
$320.00, expenses $328.55; D. McCarthy, services $948.00, 
expenses $114.21; J. Compton, services $1,880.00, expenses 
$81.40; R. Ellis, services $246.00. expenses $6.00; P. 
Bergin, services $20.00, expenses $17.00; C. P. Stanton, 
services $2,645.00, expenses $4.20; H. Sullivan, services 
$95.00, expenses $1.70; J. S. Hensley, services $140.00; James 
Foley, services $2,335.00. expenses $134.10; J. F. Severney. 
services $285.00, expenses $15.55; A. Hornberg, services 
$44.00; E. W. Stow, services $342.00, expenses $216.60; G. 
M. Inslev, $1,417.00. expenses $414.45: B. F. Daman, serv- 
er s SI. 148.00, expenses $529.80; L. C. Caldwell, $896.00, ex- 
penses $360.25; R. X. Hamlin, services $1,902.00. expenses 
$50.00; F. Kingsberg. services $90.00; W. Bettiee, services 
$1,068.00. expenses $164.25: W. J. Dewer, services $160.00; 
T. F. Clark, services $1,072.00. expenses $501.29; W. J. 
Biggy, Jr.. services $260.00, expenses $35.40; M. C. Perry, 
services $144.00, expenses $109.00; C. A. Spaulding, services 
$336.00, expenses $109.70; E. T. Newsome, services $364.00, 
expenses $58.85: F. J. Barry, services $32.00; J. H. Hamil- 
ton, services $26.00; R. C. Schindler, services $1,483.00, ex- 
penses $706.85; W. S. Schindler, services. $1,161.00, ex- 



XXXV111 

penses $224.15; O. G. Schleicher, services $340.00, expenses 
$122.66; E. A. Piatt, services $1,205.00, expenses $315.20; 
W. H. Russell, services $1,305.00, expenses $298.30; S. B. 
Priest, services $210.00, expenses $1.40; E. J. Whiskatchies, 
services $1,200.00, expenses $484.85; E. W. Madden, services 
$255.00, expenses $33.35; J. M. Creighton, services $1,494.00, 
expenses $667.60; G. E. Madden, services $30.00, expenses 
$1.70; J. Crawford, services $35.00; E. Graf, services $20.00; 
expenses $7.00; W. Duchion, services $100.00; J. V. Thomp- 
son, services $72.00, expenses $13.00; F. C. Boden, expenses 
$62.35; F. F. McGee, services $50.00; M. L. Doyle, services 
$286.00; E. M. Burgoyne, services $84.00, expenses $53.95; 
C. Bernstein, services $64.00; E. Goldstein, services $92.00, 
expenses $15.25; H. C. Wilier, services $216.00; J. W. F. 
Jackson, services $384.00, expenses $178.50; D. L. Chiles, 
services $20.00; Mrs. May Schindler, services $154.50, ex- 
penses $3.50; L. Gold, services $805.00, expenses $58.65; J. M. 
Ullmache, services $40.00, expenses $93.20; C. P. Snell, ser- 
vices $12.00, expenses $0.65; W. C. Heney, services $1,939.00, 
expenses $20.05; E. C. Lange, services $42.00; expenses $2.60; 
E. Emerson, services $365.00, expenses $79.15; J. McKenzie, 
services $47.00; O. Hooper, services $85.00, expenses $12.45; 
Geo. Mane, services $15.00; Chas. Cook, services $40.00, ex- 
penses $0.80; C. T. Oliver, Jr., services $236.00, expenses 
$25.80; D. W. Armstrong, services $5.00; F. A. Neary, serv- 
ices $280.00, expenses $42.50; P. D. Code, services $280.00, 
expenses $35.65; Martin Judge, services $40.00; J. D. Silver- 
thew, services $14.00, expenses $1.71; G. Hague, services 
$68.00; W. J. Kelly, services $199.00, expenses $3.75; S. G. 
Whitney, services $52.00, expenses $6.65; C. F. Schneider, 
services $148.00, expenses $9.30; L. R. Mower, services 
$34.00, expenses $26.50; G. L. Doolittle, services $26.00, 
expenses $7.10; W. A. Conneau, services $25.00, expenses 
$2.20; E. S. Newsome, services $125.00; J. M. Creighton, 
services $615.00, expenses $200.00; H. Beasly, services 
$175.00; L. J. Cass, services $155.00; L. Murphy, services 
$230.00; Ed. Hornback, services $71.00; E. M. , ser- 
vices $435.00, expenses $44.80; P. Berr, services $36.00; S. J. 
Rohan, services $70.00; Geo. Yearaner, services $237.50, ex- 
penses $11.60; E. Vetisarator, services $63.00; F. C. Boden, 
services $150.00; T. C. McGiff, services $12.00; H. J. Lovent- 
zen, services $680.00, expenses $471.25; A. H. Barr, services 
$748.00, expenses $2.00; P. M. McGee, expenses $100.50; N. 
Komgold, services $525.00, expenses $37.35; E. Gensler, ser- 
vices $15.00, W. J. Otts, services $510.00, expenses $423.85; 
J. H. Dewey, services $30.00, expenses $6.75; W. C. Knox, 
services $180.00; M. F. , services $1,162.50, expenses 



XXXIX 

$363.00; J. M. Kelly, services $35.00; R. H. Schouatt, services 
$161.00, expenses $2.25; D. S. Hutchins, services $80.00, ex- 
penses $40.45; Chas. Goff, services $127.15; C. P. Morey, Jr., 

services $10.00; S. F. , services $95; Jesse A. Gahans, 

services $30.00; A. Setrakian, services $12.00, expenses $14.50; 
E. E. Kam, services $10.00; J. Walsh, services $25.00. Total 
services, $70,572.65; expenses, $27,277.35. 

Extra Salaries: O. F. Holmes, $25.00; S. S. Simon, 
$5.00; O. F. Holmes, $48.25; W. J. Flynn and 2 assts., $73.00; 
Wyman, $20.00; Steffen, $20.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; T. 
Lonergan, $50.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; Cullen-Watchman, 
$28.00; A. Fromberg, $8.00; G. H. Knox, $5.00; A. B. Lycaw, 
$48.80; W. J. Flynn, $50.00; securing information at Roys, 
$5.50; D. M. Duffy, $104.50; C. A. Sage, $30.20; B. Bergen, 
$20.80; P. Callender, $25.00; P. Callender, $2.00; J. C. Brown, 
$30.00; D. W. Armstrong, $10.00; D. W. Armstrong, $25.00; 
D. E. Scales, $5.00; Bob Ellis, $15.00; D. W. Armstrong, 
$1.00; S. Hitchcock, $1.00; D. Wilkie, $25.00. Total, $778.55. 



ITEMS FRANCIS J. HENEY ACCOUNT. 

Rent of Office: $3,186.25. 

Office Expenses: Water, light, heat (repairs gas fixtures, 
$4.88; purity water, $22.75; Stafford & Co., $297.93; S. F. 
G. & E. Co., $209.59; gas regulator, $4.76; Gas Appliance 
Co., $18.00; gas mantels, $3.00; Bush & Lind, $17.00); 
stationery (E. H. Wobber & Co., et al., $314.90; numbering 
machine, $5.00; I. Upham Co., $97.23; Brown & Power, $1.00; 
Schmidt L. & L. Co., $6.00; Badescu Prtg. Co., $2.50); 
typewriter, rental and supplies (Remington T. W. Co., 
$139.80; Smith Premier, T. W., $8.00; Typewritorium, $7.50); 
newspapers, $126.15; janitor supplies (scavenger, $16.59; 
towels, $26.44; C. Brown & Sons, $19.80; J. H. Reardon, 
$2.40; W. E. Johnson, $3.35; Greenblatt & Co., $1.80; New- 
man & Levinson, $2.55; Brittain & Co., $19.00; O'Connor, 
Moffatt, $3.00; W. T. Wiley, $3.00; H. G. Root, $14.33; 
S. P. Co., $1.33; carpet-cleaning, $7.55; Hill & Co., $18.50); 
sundries, C. P. Stanton et al., $85.14; glazing, $11.25. Total, 
$1,522.02. 

Private Exchange, Telephone and Operator: $1,949.22. 

Telegrams: $316.82. 

Postage and Messenger Service: $280.26. 

Traveling Expenses: $118.45. 

Office Salaries: J. H. Reardon, $1,050.00; W. E. John- 
son, $1,650.00; Miss O. O. McShane, $1,934.66; Mrs. Smith, 
$806.25; Mrs. L. E. Russell, $2,085.00; C. H. Stanton, $377.51; 



xl 

janitress, $156.25; voucher No. 1, Jany. 31, 1907; no detail, 
$625.00. Total, $8,684.67. 

Office Furniture: J. Behrn & Co., $15.75; Fuller Desk 
Co., $27.00; Rucker Desk Co., $142.25; J. Breuner Co., 
$28.50; O'Connor, Moffatt, $91.65; Goodyear Rubber Co., 
S3.50; Sloane & Co., $52.37; G. Lipman, $7.50; Bush & Lind, 
$27.89; C. Brown & Sons, $6.05; shelving $10.00; Jewel Gas 
Appliance Co., $21.04. Total, $433.50. 

Auto and Carriage Hire: United Carriage Co., $100.25; 
Pacific Garage, $100.00; Auto Livery, $70.00; Kelly's, $8.50; 
Arcade Garage, $5.00; Tom Sawyer, $17.50; J. W. Burke, 
$3.00; Max Mamlock, $15.00; T. White, $5.00; L. D. Crane, 
$632.80. Total, $957.05. 

Stenographic and Legal Expense: L. Kavanaugh, 
$1,031.00; T. B. Elderkin, $83.40; G. W. Smith, $28.00; State 
of California, $3.50; H. Hernon, $18.10; County Clerk, $6.00; 
citation for Codes, $0.37; express on briefs, $2.65; F. L. 
Gauhey, $2.00; F. M. Handy, $1.50; R. B. Treat, $1.75; 
D. W. Burchard, $200.00; S. Potter, $15.00; notary fees, $2.00; 
H. Harper, $96.15; C. Bennett, $5.00; A. W. Reynolds, 
$13.20; W. C. Bristol, $77.15; H. C. Finkler, $6.40; Richards 
& Carrier, $258.20; Mrs. M. Moore, $10.00; Mr. Webb, $3.00; 
Mrs. C. Jellison, $5.80; D. Young, expert, $25.00; C. D. 
Stewart, expert, $189.00; G. W. Reynolds, expert, $63.00. 
Total, $2,147.37. 

Detective Expense: W. J. Burns, $2,416.95; I. Ritten- 
house et al., $1,815.66. Total, $4,232.61. 



